1%  .  0-5’. 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


Presented  bw(5x£yO'^<^.^  V?o\3\'0^0'r\  72>T33 


Division . .-r^.,“  '  ' 

.  A''6n& 
“ . \<a6^ 


r- 

o 


Al.  1 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 

/ 


https  ;//archive.org/details/gospelaccordingt00alex_0 


THE 


GOSPEL 


AOCOEDING  TO 


MATTHEW 


EXPLAINED  BY 


i-"'' 

JOSEPH' ADDISON  ALEXANDER. 


NEW  YORK: 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER,  124  GRAND  STREET. 

1864. 


W 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  tiie  year  1860,  by 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER, 

In  tbo  Clerk’s  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Southern 

District  of  New  York. 


JOHN  F.  TROW, 

PBINTUR,  8TKRKOTVPKE,  AND  KLECTROTYPKR, 

50  Greene  Street,  New  York, 


PREFACE. 


\ 


This  volume  presents  the  last  work  on  which  the  pen 
of  Dr.  Alexander  was  engaged. 

It  is  complete  as  a  commentary  to  the  close  of  Chap¬ 
ter  XYI.,  and  then,  as  though  the  author  anticipated  the 
approaching  interruption  of  his  earthly  labours,  it  finds  a 
quasi-completion  in  an  analysis  of  the  concluding  chapters. 

It  may  be  of  interest  to  the  reader  to  know,  that  at 
the  commencement  of  his  analysis  of  Chapter  XYII.,  the 
manuscript  of  Dr.  Alexander  contains  this  memorandum  : 
‘‘  Kesumed  after  five  weeks"  confinement  and  inaction, 
January  3d,  1860  ; ""  and  that  day  by  day  pursuing  the 
work,  he  records  in  his  journal,  Wednesday,  January 
18th,  Finished  the  Analysis  of  Matthew,""  and  20th, 
Bead  over  my  Analysis  of  Matthew  xvii.-xxviii.,"" — just  a 
week  and  a  day  before  his  death. 

Of  course  not  only  is  the  volume  deficient  in  the  notes 
upon  these  concluding  chapters,  but  also  in  the  General 
Introduction,  similar  to  that  of  his  work  on  Mark,  which 
he  designed  to  have  furnished. 


iv 


PREFACE. 


It  remains  only  to  state,  that  as  it  was  Dr.  Alex¬ 
ander's  desire  to  make  the  commentary  on  Matthew 
com|)lete  in  itself,  without  reference  to  that  on  Mark, 
wherever  parallel  passages  occur,  he  has  in  general  simply 
transferred  the  notes  in  full  from  the  latter  volume, 
making  only  the  necessary  alterations  to  adapt  them  to 
the  text  of  Matthew. 


New  York,  December^  1860. 


S.  D.  A. 


THE 


GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO 

MATTHEW. 


CHAPTER  I. 

In  pursuance  of  his  purpose  to  demonstrate  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus 
by  showing  the  exact  correspondence  of  his  life  to  the  prophecies  and 
types  of  the  Old  Testament,  Matthew  begins  by  tracing  his  descent, 
not  only  from  David  the  first  and  greatest  of  the  theocratic  kings,  but 
from  Abraham  the  Father  of  the  Faithful  and  the  founder  of  the 
ancient  church  or  chosen  people.  This  important  fact  is  established, 
not  by  mere  assertion  or  historical  narration,  but  by  a  technical  and 
formal  genealogy  or  pedigree,  exhibiting  our  Lord’s  descent,  not  merely 
in  the  general  but  in  detail,  throughout  the  three  great  periods  of  the 
history  of  Israel  (1-17).  Having  thus  shown,  as  if  by  documentary 
evidence,  from  whom  he  was  descended,  the  evangelist  records  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  which  preceded  the  Nativity  itself,  with  particular  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  difficulties  springing  from  his  mother’s  marriage  and  the 
mode  of  their  solution  (18-25). 

1.  The  book  of  the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  son 
of  David,  the  son  of  Abraham. 

The  two  first  words  are  to  be  read  in  close  connection  as  forming 
one  compound  title,  generatiori’hooJc^  descent-hooh^  corresponding  to  the 
modern  phrase,  genealogical  tahle^  or  to  the  one  word  pedigree,  when 
used  to  denote,  not  the  extraction  or  descent  itself,  but  the  written 
record  or  certification  of  it.  The  word  translated  hoolc  (filfSXos)  has 
in  Greek  a  much  wider  usage,  being  applied  to  any  writing,  and  orig¬ 
inally  signifying  one  of  the  most  ancient  kinds  of  writing  material,  to 
wit,  the  inner  bark  of  the  papyrus  plant,  from  which  is  derived  our 
1 


2 


MATTHEW  1,1.2. 

paper^  although  made  of  an  entirely  different  substance.  As  here  used 
it  is  neaily  equivalent  to  document  in  modern  English,  or  to  paper,  as 
denoting  not  the  mere  material  but  the  writing,  especially  when  it  is 
ollicial  or  authoritative,  or  important  in  relation  to  some  special  case  or 
business,  as  for  instance  the  “  papers”  in  a  suit  at  law.  The  other 
word  (yevicreois)  in  classical  Greek  means  generation,  in  the  proper  sense 
of  creation  or  procreation,  but  in  Ilellemstic  usage  birth  (as  in  v.  18 
below)  or  lineage,  extraction,  as  in  this  verse.*  It  is  the  genitive  case 
of  the  name  {Genesis')  given  in  the  Septuagint  version  to  the  first  book 
of  Moses,  as  containing  the  Origines  of  human  history.  There  is  no 
grammatical  ellipsis  to  be  here  supplied,  {this  w-)  the  dooJc  (Tyndale), 
so  as  to  form  a  complete  sentence.  It  is  rather  a  title  or  inscription, 
either  of  the  whole  book ;  or,  as  some  suppose,  of  the  two  first  chap¬ 
ters,  which  contain  the  history  of  our  Saviour’s  infancy  ;  or  of  the  first 
alone,  which  contains  his  genealogy  and  birth  j  or,  as  most  interpreters 
are  now  agreed,  of  the  genealogy  alone  (vs.  1-17).  It  may  then  be 
regarded  as  the  original  inscription  of  the  pedigree,  belonging  to  it  in  the 
register  from  which  some  suppose  it  to  have  been  transcribed.  This  sup¬ 
position,  though  unnecessary,  is  bj^  no  means  inconsistent  with  the  in¬ 
spiration  of  the  record,  since  the  introduction  or  adoption  even  of  a 
human  composition  by  divine  autliority  imparts  to  it  the  same  infalli¬ 
bility  which  it  would  have  if  written  by  immediate  divine  suggestion. 
As  a  positive  argument  in  favour  of  this  supposition  it  may  be  alleged, 
that  the  entire  structure  of  the  genealogy  is  not  what  might  have  been 
expected  in  the  opening  of  a  history,  but  resembles  rather  a  document 
prefixed  to  it.  on  which  the  writer  then  proceeds  to  comment,  as  a  sort 
of  text  or  theme,  or  from  which  he  sets  out  as  the  starting-point  of  his 
whole  narrative.  This  peculiar  relation  of  the  genealogy  to  the  history 
in  Matthew’s  Gospel  is  made  still  more  striking  by  comparing  it  with 
Luke’s,  which  is  wrought  into  the  texture  of  his  narrative,  so  as  to 
form  an  integral  and  inseparable  part  of  it.  (See  Luke  3,  23-38.)  Je¬ 
sus  Christ  is  here  used  not  as  a  mere  personal  designation  or  proper 
name,  although  it  had  become  so  wlien  this  book  was  written,  but  with 
distinct  reference  to  the  meaning  of  both  titles,  and  to  the  claim  which 
they  involve,  that  he  to  whom  they  are  applied  was  the  promised  Sa¬ 
viour  (see  below,  on  v.  21)  and  Messiah,  or  Anointed  Pinphet  Pj-iest 
and  King  of  Israel  (see  below,  on  v.  16).  Even  regarded  as  a  title  or 
inscription,  this  first  sentence  is  equivalent  to  a  formal  declaration  of 
our  Lord’s  Messiahship,  as  the  truth  to  be  e.stablished  in  the  following 
history,  beginning  with  his  lineal  de.scent  from  Abraham  and  David,  in 
default  of  which  all  other  proofs  would  be  unavailing.  Son  is  here 
used  in  the  wider  sense  of  lineal  descendant.  (See  below,  on  v,  20,  and 
compare  Luke  1,  5.  13, 16.  19.  9.)  Son  of  Darkl  was  among  the  most 
familiar  designations  of  the  Messiah  in  the  dialect  of  the  contemporary 
Jews.  (See  below,  on  9,  27.  12.  23.  15,  22.  20, 30.  21, 9. 15.  22,  42.  and 
compare  Pom.  1,  3.  Pev.  5,  5.  22,  16.)  Son  of  Abraham  may  be  con¬ 
strued  with  the  nearest  antecedent  {David),  but  agrees  more  probably 
with  the  remoter  {Jesus  Christ)^  whose  descent  from  both  the  Patriarchs 
(or  founders  of  the  royal  race)  is  here  asserted. 


2.  Abraham  begat  Isaac  ;  and  Isaac  begat  Jacob  ; 
and  Jacob  begat  Judas  and  bis  brethren. 

The  form  of  expression  here  used  and  tln-oughout  the  table 
is  a  literal  translation  of  the  one  employed  in  Jewish  genealogieSj 

the  oldest  specimens  of  which  are  those  contained  in  Genesis  (4,  18), 
particularly  that  in  the  fifth  chapter  j  where  we  have  substantially  the 
same  title  or  inscription  as  in  this  case,  the  book  of  the  generations 
of  Adam”  (Gen.  5,  1),  and  the  same  technical  formula  (begat),  denoting 
not  so  much  an  act  as  a  relation,  and  meaning  simply  that  he  was  his 
father.  A  trace  of  the  same  genealogical  usage  may  be  found  in  Ps. 
2,  7,  where  the  words,  “  This  day  have  1  begotten  thee,”  do  not  fix  the 
date  of  the  Messiah’s  sonship  as  beginning  in  time,  but  express  a  filial 
relation  which  existed  from  eternity.  What  is  here  affirmed  is  that 
Abraham  was  the  father  or  progenitor  of  Isaac,  Isaac  of  Jacob,  Jacob 
of  Judah,  and  so  on,  to  the  end  of  the  whole  pedigree.  Judas,  the 
Greek  form  of  the  Hebrew  Judah  {Jehudah),  here  distinguished  from 
Ms  brethren  (or  brothers),  the  other  sons  of  Jacob,  as  the  one  fi  om 
whose  line  the  Messiah  was  to  spring.  (See  below,  on  2,  G,  and  com¬ 
pare  Gen.  49,  10.  II eb.  7,  14.  Rev.  5,  5),  though  the  rest  were  entitled 
to  bo  named,  at  least  collectively,  as  being  Patriai-chs  or  founders  of 
the  twelve  tribes  (compare  Acts  7,  8.  9),  each  of  which  possessed  a 
sort  of  royal  dignity,  and  all  of  which  together  constituted  the  Theo¬ 
cracy  or  chosen  people.  (Compare  Ps.  122.  4.  Acts  26,  7.)  As  if  he 
had  said,  ‘  Jacob  was  the  father  of  the  twelve,  to  whom  the  tribes  of 
our  theocracy  trace  their  origin,  and  among  these  of  Judah,  who  was 
the  lineal  progenitor  of  Christ  himself,  as  shown  in  the  detailed  ge¬ 
nealogy  which  follo  ws.’ 

3.  And  Judas  begat  Phares  and  Zara  of  Thainar  ;  and 
Pbares  begat  Esrom  ;  and  Esrom  begat  Aram. 

In  the  original  narrative  (Gen.  38,  29.  30),  these  names  are  written 
Pharez,  Zarah,  and  Tamar,  ty  (out  of,  from,  by)  Tliamar,  the  daugh¬ 
ter-in-law  of  Judah  (Gen.  38.  6).  As  this  was  an  incestuous  connec¬ 
tion,  and  intentionally  so  on  Tamar’s  part,  it  seems  exti  nordinary  that 
it  should  be  prominent  in  the  genealogy  of  Christ.  But  this  only 
serves  to  prove  the  genuineness  of  the  genealogy  itself,  as  the  same 
thing  is  apparent  in  the  Jewish  books,  which  undertake  to  account  for 
it  by  representing  the  sins  of  Tamar,  Rahab,  and  Bathsheba,  as  virtuous 
acts  committed  under  the  divine  direction.  But  this  solution  is  not 
only  morally  detestable,  but  far  less  probable  on  other  grounds,  than 
that  which  supposes  these  names  to  be  introduced  to  humble  Jewish 
pride  and  illustrate  the  divine  .sovereignty  in  choosing  ‘’base  things  of 
the  world,  and  things  wliich  are  despised  ....  that  no  flesh  should 
glory  in  his  presence”  (1  Cor.  1,29).  Esrom  and  Aram,  called  in 
JJavid’s  genealogy  appended  to  the  book  of  Ruth  (4, 19),  Hezron  (com¬ 
pare  1  Chron.  2,  5)  and  Bam.,  which  last  may  be  only  a  contracted 
form  of  Aram  (compare  Job  32,  2,  with  Genesis  22,  21). 


4 


MATTHEW  1,45.6. 


4.  And  Aram  begat  Aminadab  ;  and  Aminadab  begat 
Naasson  ;  and  Naasson  begat  Salmon. 

These  names  occur  also  in  Ruth  4,  20,  with  a  slight  difference  of 
orthography,  (^Amminadab  and  ]SfalisJi07id)  The  latter  was  a  brother 
of  the  wife  "of  Aaron  (Ex.  G,  23)  and  the  hereditary  chief  of  Judah  in 
the  wilderness  (Num.  2,  3.  10, 14.) 

5.  And  Salmon  begat  Booz  of  Baobab  ;  and  Booz  be¬ 
gat  Obed  of  Kutii ;  and  Obed  begat  Jesse. 

In  1  Chr.  2, 11,  Salmon  is  called  Salma  {Salmah),  as  another  per¬ 
son  is,  in  the  same  chapter  (vs.  51-54).  Booz  is  the  Boaz  of  the  Old 
Testament  (Ruth  2,  1.  4,  21),  and  might  have  been  conformed  to  it  as 
Jesse  (Jessai)  is,  ,in  the  translation.  Of  Bachad,  of  ButJi^  the  same 
form  of  expression  as  in  v.  3  and  there  explained.  There  is  no  reason 
to  doubt  the  identity  of  the  former  with  the  Rahab  of  the  book  of 
Joshua  (2,  1.  6,  23.  25),  which  agrees  well  with  the  chronology,  as 
Salmon,  the  son  of  Rahshon,  was  a  man  of  mature  age  at  the  fall  of 
Jericho.  The  difficulty  which  arises  from  the  length  of  the  interval,  is 
not  peculiar  to  this  table,  but  common  to  it  and  the  one  in  Ruth, 
which  may  also  be  abridged  by  the  omission  of  some  less  important 
names  (see  below,  on  v.  17),  as  the  verb  (hegaf)  does  not  necessarily 
denote  immediate  succession,  but  the  genealogical  relation  of  progeni¬ 
tor  and  descendant,  like  the  nouns  son  and  daughter,  (See  above,  on 
V.  1,  and  compare  the  passages  there  cited.) 

6.  And  Jesse  begat  David  the  king  ;  and  David  the 
king  begat  Solomon  of  her  (that  had  been  the  wife)  of 
U  rias. 

DarAd  the  Icing ^  by  way  of  eminence,  not  only  as  the  first  but  as  the 
best  and  greatest  of  the  theocratic  sovereigns,  who  represented  the  Mes¬ 
siah’s  royalty  and  as  it  were  kept  his  throne  for  him  till  he  came  (com¬ 
pare  Ezek.  21,  27).  The  reign  of  Saul,  although  divinely  authorized,  was 
not  theocratical  but  secular,  designed  to  teach  the  people  by  experiment 
the  natural  effect  of  having  a  king  like  the  other  nations.  (See  1  Sam. 
8,  5.  20.)  The  reigns  that  followed,  not  excepting  that  of  Solomon, 
are  treated  in  the  history  as  mere  continuations  of  the  reign  of  David, 
filling  up  the  interval  between  him  and  the  Great  Deliverer,  of  whose 
Messianic  royalty  he  was  the  constituted  type  and  representative. 
This  special  relation  between  Christ  and  David  is  implied  in  the  com¬ 
parative  frequency  with  which  the  latter  is  referred  to  in  the  later 
Scriptures,  and  his  name  sometimes  applied  to  the  Messiah  himself 
(Ezek.  34,  23.  24.  37,  24.  25),  while  Solomon  is  never  named  in 
prophecy,  and  very  seldom  in  the  New  Testament,  and  even  then 
rather  with  disparagement  than  honour  (see  below,  on  6,  29.  12,42). 
These  comparisons  will  throw  light  on  the  emphasis  with  which  the 
evangelist  (or  genealogist)  twice  in  this  one  sentence  speaks  of  Bamd 


MATTHEW  1,  6-10. 


5 


the  Mug.  This  repetition  at  the  same  time  indicates  that  David  was 
the  close  of  one  and  the  beginning  of  another  cycle  in  the  history  of 
Israel.  The  theocracy  which  culminated  in  him  begins  to  decline  even 
under  his  successor.  From  Abraham  to  David  all  moves  upwards,  and 
from  David  to  the  Advent  downwards.  All  idea  of  intrinsic  merit, 
even  in  the  man  thus  highly  honoured,  as  a  ground  of  the  divine  choice, 
is  excluded  by  the  mention  of  Bathsheba,  suggesting  the  great  complex 
crime  of  David’s  life,  and  the  providential  judgments  which  avenged  it, 
but  without  disturbing  his  position  as  an  instrument  in  God’s  hand 
and  a  type  of  the  Messiah.  This  is  the  fourth  female  name  introduced 
among  our  Lord’s  progenitors  (see  above,  on  vs.  3,  5),  one  of  the  four 
being  of  heathen  origin,  and  the  other  three  remembered  chiefly  for 
their  sins.  This  remarkable  fact  may  be  connected  with  our  Lord’s 
vicarious  subjection  to  reproach  and  his  official  share  in  the  dishonour 
brought  upon  our  race  by  sin.  A  more  exact  translation  of  the  last 
words  would  be,  from  (or  5y)  the  (wife)  of  Uriah.  (See  the  original 
history  in  2  Sam.  xi.  xii. 

7.  And  Solomon  begat  Koboam  ;  and  Koboam  begat 
Abia  ;  and  Abia  begat  Asa. 

Rdhoam  and  Abia  are  the  Rehoboam  and  Abijam  or  Abigail  of  the 
Old  Testament.  (See  1  Kings  11,43.  14,31.  2  Chr.  12,16.  13,1.) 
They  are  named  here  only  as  connecting  links  in  the  chain  of  genealo¬ 
gical  succession. 

8.  And  Asa  begat  Josapliat  ;  and  Josapbat  begat  Jo- 
ram  ;  and  Joram  begat  Ozias. 

Josaphat  and  Ozias^  called  in  the  Hebrew  Jelioshaphat  and  Uzziah. 
(See  1  Kings  22,  41.  2  Kings  15,  13.)  Between  Joram  and  Uzziah  three 
kings  are  omitted,  namely,  Ahaziah  (2  Kings  9,  29),  Joash  (2  Kings 
12,  1),  and  Amaziah  (2  Kings  14,  1).  These  omissions  were  no  doubt 
intended  to  reduce  die  genealogy  to  the  uniform  limits  mentioned 
in  V.  17  below;  and  these  particular  kings  may  have  been  chosen 
as  descendants  of  Jezebel,  and  as  such  representatives  of  the  cor¬ 
ruption  wrought  in  Judah  by  alliance  with  Israel,  and  especially  by 
intermarriage  with  the  family  of  Ahab.  This  is  far  more  probable 
than  that  the  choice  of  names  to  be  omitted  was  entirely  arbitrary ; 
but  even  this  is  less  incredible  than  that  the  omission  was  an  ignorant 
or  inadvertent  one,  either  on  the  part  of  the  evangelist  or  on  that  of 
the  original  genealogist  from  whom  this  genealogy  was  borrowed  (see 
above,  on  v.  1). 

9.  10.  And  Ozias  begat  Joatham  ;  and  Joatbam  begat 
Acbaz  ;  and  Acbaz  begat  Ezebias  ;  and  Ezekias  begat  Ma- 
nasses;  and  Manasses  begat  Amon ;  and  Amon  begat  J osias. 

In  these  two  verses  there  are  no  omissions,  but  the  royal  gene- 


6 


M  A  T  T  II  E  W  1,  9.  10.  11, 

alogy  is  given  without  interruption.  Joatham,  AcJiaz^  and  Ezekias^ 
are  the  Jotham^  Aliaz^  and  Eezekiali  of  the  Old  Testament,  where  they 
follow  each  other  in  the  same  order.  (See  2  Kings  15,  32.  16,  1. 
18, 1,  and  compare  2  Chr.  27,  1.  28,  1.  29, 1.)  Manasses  {Manasseli)^ 
Amon  (in  one  or  two  of  the  oldest  copies,  Amos),  and  Josias  {Josiah)^ 
are  the  next  three  kings  in  the  original  history.  (See  1  Kings  21,  1. 
19.  22, 1,  and  compare  2  Chr.  33,  1.  19.  34, 1.) 

11.  And  J osias  begat  Jeclionias  and  bis  brethren,  about 
the  time  they  were  carried  away  to  Babylon. 

The  omission  of  Jelioiakim^  the  son  of  Josiah  and  the  father  of  Je~ 
lioiacliin  or  Jeconiali  (2  Kings  23,  34.  24,  6.  2  Chr.  36,  4.  8),  has  been 
variously  explained.  Some  suppose  Jeconiah  to  be  the  Greek  form 
both  of  Jehoiahim  and  Jehoiachin ;  but  this  is  at  variance  both  with 
Hebrew  and  Septuagint  usage.  (Compare  2  Kings  24,  6. 12,  15.  25, 
27.  Ezek.  1,  2.  with  Esth.  2,  6.  Jer.  24, 1.  27,  20,  28,  4,  and  both  with 
Jer.  22,  24.  28.  37,  1,  where  the  name  is  still  further  contracted  to 
Coniah.)  This  objection  applies  no  less  to  the  supposition  that  Jeco¬ 
niah  means  Jehoiahim  in  this  verse  and  Jehoiachin  in  the  next,  which 
would  moreover  be  at  variance  with  the  context,  as  the  name  of  each 
progenitor,  except  the  first,  is  twice  inserted.  Still  less  admissible  is 
the  assumption  of  an  ignorant  or  inadvertent  error  in  confounding  the 
two  names,  which  are  less  alike  in  Greek  and  Hebrew  than  in  English, 
and  could  hardly  be  confounded  in  a  formal  genealogy.  More  probable 
than  either  is  the  supposition  of  an  error  in  transcription  from  the 
same  cause,  as  nothing  is  more  common  w^hen  two  'words  are  alike 
than  the  unintentional  omission  of  one.  And  we  find  a.ccordingly,  in 
several  uncial  manuscripts  and  ancient  versions,  Josiah  loegat  Jehoiahim 
and  Jehoiahim  hegat  Jeconiah  and  his  brethren.  This  is  rejected  by 
the  critics  as  a  mere  interpolation,  because  wanting  in  the  oldest  manu¬ 
scripts  now  extant,  which  however  are  at  least  four  hundred  3mars 
later  than  the  date  of  composition.  It  is  also  objected  that  Jeconiah 
bad  no  brothers,  or  at  least  not  more  than  one  (1  Chron.  3,  16.  2 
Chron.  36,  10.)  This  objection  ma}'"  be  met  by  still  another  explana¬ 
tion,  which  supposes  Jehoiakim  to  be  omitted  as  the  king  by  whose 
fault  the  monarchy  was  overthrown  and  the  national  independence  lost 
(2  Kings  24,  4.  10),  and  the  lorethren  of  Jehoiachin  (or  Jeconiah)  to  de¬ 
note  the  contemporary  race  who  went  with  him  into  exile.  (Compare 
the  use  of  the  word  brethren  in  Ex.  2, 11.  4, 18.  Num.  20,  3.  Acts  3, 
22.  7,  23.)  The  principal  objection  to  this  last  assumption  is  the  vague 
and  unusual  sense  which  it  puts  upon  the  verb  loegat.  But  any  sup¬ 
position  seems  more  credible  than  that  of  a  gross  blunder,  either  on 
the  part  of  the  evangelist  or  on  that  of  his  genealogical  authorit}^,  and 
of  it>  passing  unobserved  until  the  time  of  Porphjmy,  who  wrote  against 
the  Scriptures  in  the  latter  part  of  the  third  century.  About  the  time 
they  were  carried  away  is  a  correct  but  needless  paraphrase  of  three 
Greek  words  (eVi  rgs  yeToiKeauis)  literally-  meaning  on  (or  ett)  the  mi¬ 
gration.  The  preposition  (eVi)  is  explained  by  some  as  meaning  toio  - 


MATTHEW  1,11-16. 


r 

ards  or  just  before;  but  its  usage  elsewhere  in  construction  with  the 
sarae  case  rather  requires  the  sense  of  about  or  at.  (See  Heb.  1,  1, 
2  Pet. ,  3,  3,  and  compare  Mark  2,26.  Luke  3,2.  4,27.  Rom.  1,10.) 
The  genitive  {of  Babylon)  can'  hardly  denote  motion  to  a  place,  but 
rather  means  belonging  to  it,  as  we  say  the  Bab)donian  exile  or  cap¬ 
tivity,  in  speaking  of  the  national  condition,  or  the  Babylonian  depor¬ 
tation,  of  the  act  or  event  which  caused  it. 

12.  And  after  they  were  brought  to  Babylon,  Jecho- 
nias  begat  Salatbiel ;  and  Salathiel  begat  Zorobabel. 

After  the  migration  of  Babylon.^  or  Babylonian  exile,  i.  e.  after  it 
happened  or  began,  not  after  it  was  ended,  as  the  Greek  word  does  not 
signify  the  state  or  condition  of  the  people  there,  but  their  removal 
thither,  as  in  the  preceding  verse.  It  is  therefore  neither  necessary 
nor  admissible  to  give  the  preposition  (ufTn)  here  the  sense  of  in  or 
during.!  which  is  contrary  to  usage.  The  English  version  {after  they 
were  brought  to  Babylon)  conveys  the  sense  but  not  t!ie  form  of  the 
original.  The  divine  declaration,  that  Jeconiah  should  be  childless, 
means  that  he  should  have  no  immediate  successor  on  the  throne,  as 
explained  in  the  context  of  the  prophecy  itself  (Jer.  22,  30.)  Salathiel. 
the  Greek  form  of  the  Hebrew  Shealtiel,  is  repeatedly  named  in  the 
Old  Testament  also  as  the  father  of  Zorobabel  {Zerubbabel,  Ezra  3,  2.8. 
Hagg.  1,  1),  but  in  1  Chr.  3, 19  as  his  uncle,  which  may  either  relate  to 
a  different  person,  like  the  two  Zedekiahs  in  vs.  15.  16  of  the  same 
chapter,  or  to  an  adoption,  or  to  a  leviratic  marriage  of  the  kind  pre¬ 
scribed  in  Deut.  25,  5.  The  Salathiel  and  Zorobabel  of  Luke  3,  27 
can  hardly  be  identical  with  those  here  mentioned. 

13-15.  And  Zorobabel  begat  Abiud  ;  and  Abiud  be¬ 
gat  Eliakim  ;  and  Elialdm  begat  Azor  ;  and  Azor  begat 
Sadoc  ;  and  Sadoc  begat  Acbim  ;  and  Acbim  begat  Eliud  ; 
and  Eliud  begat  Eleazar  ;  and  Eleazar  begat  Mattban  ; 
and  Mattban  begat  Jacob. 

As  these  nine  names  belong  to  the  interval  between  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  we  have  no  means  of  verifying  or  comparing  them, 
but  every  reason  to  believe  that  they  were  found  in  the  public  archives 
of  the  tribe  of  Judah  or  the  private  genealogy  of  the  family  of  Joseph. 
The  number  of  generations  corresponds  sufficiently  to  that  of  years  in¬ 
cluded  in  the  interval  referred  to.  If  there  is  any  disproportion,  the 
excess  is  on  the  side  last  mentioned,  and  may  be  readilj^  explained  by 
the  assumption  that  a  few  names  are  omitted,  as  in  other  parts  of  this 
same  table.  (See  above,  on  v.  8,  and  below,  on  v.  17.) 

16.  And  Jacob  begat  Joseph  tbe  busbarid  of  Mary, 
of  wboiii  was  born  Jesus,  wbo  is  called  Cbrist. 


8 


MATTHEW  1,  16.  17. 


This  conclusion  of  the  genealogy  shows  whose  it  is,  namely  Jo¬ 
seph’s  ;  and  at  the  same  time  why  it  is  recorded,  namely,  because  he 
was  the  husband  of  Mary ;  and  also  why  her  husband's  pedigree  has 
any  historical  interest  or  value,  namely,  because  she  was  the  mother 
of  Messiah.  As  if  it  had  been  said,  ‘  Since  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  Mary, 
and  Mary  the  lawful  wife  of  Joseph,  and  Joseph  the  lineal  descendant 
of  David,  therefore  Jesus  was  himself  the  heir  of  David,  by  legal  right, 
as  shown  in  the  preceding  table,  no  less  than  by  natural  descent,  as  ap¬ 
pears  from  his  mother’s  genealogy  recorded  elsewhere,’  i.  e.  in  Luke  3, 
23-31.  The  Heli,  there  named  as  the  father  of  Joseph,  may  have  been 
so  by  adoption  or  by  legal  substitution  (see  above,  on  v.  12),  but  was 
more  probably  his  father-in-law,  i.  e.  the  father  of  Mary  herself,  who  is 
said  to  be  so  called  in  some  Jewish  books.  Jesus  called  the  Christy  or 
more  exactly  still,  the  (one)  called  Christy  is  not,  as  some  imagine,  a 
suggestion  of  doubt  (equivalent  to  saying,  the  reputed  or  alleged  Mes¬ 
siah),  nor  on  the  other  hand,  a  strong  asseveration  of  the  fact  (so  called 
because  he  was  so,  a  use  of  the  Greek  verb  now  denied  by  the  highe.st 
philological  authorities) ;  but  a  simple  statement  that  he  bore  this 
title  at  the  date  of  the  history  or  genealogy,  and  was  thereby  distin¬ 
guished  from  all  those  who  shared  with  him  the  name  of  Jesus  (or 
Joshua),  which  was  one  in  common  use  among  the  Jews.  The  Christ 
has  here  its  primary  and  full  sense  as  an  official  title,  and  not  its  sec¬ 
ondary  and  attenuated  meaning  as  a  personal  or  proper  name  (see 
above,  on  v.  1).  Was  horn,  the  same  verb  that  is  used  throughout 
the  genealogical  table  in  its  active  form  (begat),  but  is  applied,  in  Clas¬ 
sical  as  well  as  Hellenistic  usage,  to  both  parents. 

17.  So  all  the  generations  from  Abraham  to  David 
(are)  fourteen  generations  ;  and  from  David  until  the  car¬ 
rying  away  into  Babylon  (are)  fourteen  generations  ;  and 
from  the  carrying  away  into  Babylon  unto  Christ  (are) 
fourteen  generations. 

So,  literally,  then  or  therefore,  a  connective  particle,  referring  back 
to  the  preceding  genealogy,  and  summing  up  its  statements,  as  an  in¬ 
troduction  to  the  history  which  follows.  As  if  he  had  said :  ‘  You  see 
then  from  this  table,  that  there  are  fourteen  generations.’  &c.  This 
cannot  mean  that  there  were  really,  in  point  of  fact,  just  fourteen  gener¬ 
ations  in  the  several  intervals  here  mentioned  ;  for  we  know  from  the 
Old  Testament,  that  four  names  are  omitted  in  the  second  period,  and 
have  reason  to  believe  that  others  may  be  wanting  in  the  third.  (See 
above,  on  vs.  8. 13.)  It  rather  means  the  contrary,  to  wit,  that  al¬ 
though  there  were  more  generations  in  the  actual  succession,  only  four¬ 
teen  are  here  given,  for  the  sake  of  uniformity,  in  each  of  the  three 
periods.  So  far  from  being  a  mistake  or  an  intentional  misrepresenta¬ 
tion,  neither  of  which  can  be  imagined  even  in  a  skilful  genealogi.^t, 
much  less  in  an  inspired  evangelist,  it  is  really  a  caution  to  the  reader 
against  falling  into  the  very  mistake  which  some  would  charge  upon 


MATTHEW  1,17. 


9 


the  writer.  As  if  he  had  said  :  ‘  Let  it  be  observed  that  this  is  not  a 
complete  list  of  all  the  {generations  between  Abraham  and  Christ,  but 
that  some  names  are  omitted,  so  as  to  leave  fourteen  in  each  great  divi¬ 
sion  of  the  history  of  Israel.’  'All  the  generations^  if  extended  to  the 
whole  verse,  may  then  be  understood  to  mean  all  that  are  here  gi\en ; 
but  if  restricted  to  the  first  clause,  which  is  a  more  probable  construc¬ 
tion,  it  may  have  its  strict  sense  (absolutely  all)  and  give  a  reason  for 
selecting  fourteen  as  the  measure  of  the  periods,  namely,  that  there 
were  really  just  fourteen  generations  in  the  first,  and  that  the  others 
were  assimilated  to  it,  either  by  the  genealogist  from  whom  the  pedi¬ 
gree  was  borrowed,  or  by  the  evangelist  himself.  But  how  are  the 
names  to  be  distributed  and  reckoned,  so  as  to  leave  fourteen  in  each 
division  ?  The  solution  of  this  problem  may  be  varied  by  counting 
David  and  Josiah  once  or  twice,  and  by  including  or  excluding  Christ 
himself  and  his  mother  in  the  third  division.  But  this  only  shows 
that  the  precise  enumeration  of  the  names  is  not  the  main  thing,  but 
their  equal  distribution,  and  that  this  must  be  determined  by  the  real 
number  in  the  first  division,  which  remains  the  same  in  all  these  dif¬ 
ferent  arrangements.  It  is  also  evident  that  if  the  three  fourteens  can 
be  made  out  in  so  many  different  ways,  the  writer  cannot  be  mistaken 
in  affirming  their  existence,  although  we  may  not  be  able  to  determine 
which  mode  of  calculation  he  intended.  But  it  still  remains  to  be  con¬ 
sidered  wh}^  he  thus  divided  them  at  all.  Some  say  that  this  was  a 
customary  formula  appended  to  the  ancient  genealogies,  designed  to 
aid  the  memory,  and  here  retained  by  the  evangelist  without  change, 
as  a  part  of  the  original  document  which  he  is  quoting.  Others  sup¬ 
pose  a  mystical  allusion  to  the  name  of  David,  the  letters  of  which  in 
Hebrew  when  summed  up  according  to  their  numerical  walue, 

make  fourteen  (4-|-6-{-4)  ;  or  to  the  forty-two  stations  of  the  Israelites 
in  the  wilderness ;  or  to  the  scriptural  use  of  seven  as  a  sacred  num¬ 
ber.  Besides  these  rnnemonical  and  mystical  solutions,  there  is  a  chro¬ 
nological  one,  namely,  that  the  periods  are  equal  in  years  though  not  in 
generations,  and  two  of  the  great  cycles  having  been  completed,  he 
who  was  born  at  the  close  of  the  third  must  be  the  Christ.  The  only 
other  supposition  that  need  be  stated  is,  that  the  writer’s  purpose  Avas 
to  draw  attention  to  the  three  great  periods  in  the  history  of  Israel  as 
the  chosen  people,  one  extending  from  Abraham  as  its  great  progenitor 
to  David  its  first  theocratical  sovereign  ;  another  to  the  downfall  of  the 
monarchy  and  loss  of  the  national  independence  ;  and  a  third  from  this 
disaster  to  the  advent  of  Messiah.  To  this  periodolog}’  attention  would 
be  drawn  by  the  very  effort  to  arrange  the  periods  and  the  choice  of 
methods  in  so  doing.  Tlius  understood,  the  verse  may  be  paraphrased 
as  follows :  ‘  The  foregoing  table  is  divided  into  three  parts,  the  first 
of  which  embraces  fourteen  generations,  and  the  other  twm  are  here 
assimilated  to  it,  b}'^  omitting  a  few  names,  in  order  to  make  prominent 
the  three  great  eras  in  the  history  of  Israel,  marked  and  divided  by  the 
calling  of  Abraham,  the  reign  of  David,  the  Babylonian  exile,  and  the 
birth  of  Christ,  the  end  to  which  the  previous  succession  pointed. 

1- 


10 


MATTHEW  1,  18. 

18.  Now  the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ  was  on  this  wise  : 
When  as  his  mother  Mary  was  espoused  to  Joseph,  before 
they  came  together,  she  was  found  with  child  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

Had  the  preceding  pedigree  been  that  of  a  mere  man,  it  would 
have  ended  as  it  began  with  the  usual  genealogical  formula,  Joseph 
l)egat  Jesus.  But  as  this  was  not  the  fact,  the  true  relation  between 
them  is  distinctly  stated  in  v.  16,  namely,  that  Joseph  was  not  the 
father  of  Jesus,  though  the  husband  of  his  mother.  To  this  negative 
statement  the  evangelist  now  adds  a  positive  statement  of  his  real 
generation,  connected  yet  contrasted  with  the  previous  genealogy  by 
the  connective  (Se),  which  has  here  its  proper  sense  of  hut^  or  on  the 
contrary.  This  connection  of  the  sentences  is  weakened  and  obscured 
in  the  translation  b}^  the  use  of  now  instead  of  as  well  as  by  prefix¬ 
ing  it  to  Jesus  Christ,  which  in  the  Greek  is  rendered  prominent  by 
standing  first.  As  if  he  had  said :  ‘  All  these,  from  Isaac  (v.  2)  to 
Joseph  (v.  16),  followed  one  another  in  the  natural  sequence  of  or¬ 
dinary  generation  ;  Jesus  Christ,  on  the  contrary,  was  born  in  a  manner 
wholly  different,’  which  the  writer  then  goes  on  to  describe  (in  vs.  18-25). 
Some  of  the  modern  critics  omit  Jesus,  upon  very  doubtful  manuscript 
authority,  but  with  the  supposed  advantage  of  reserving  the  proper 
name  or  personal  designation  until  after  its  prescription  by  the  angel  has 
been  stated  (in  v.  21).  But  the  name  has  been  already  mentioned  twice 
(in  vs.  1.  16),  and  cannot  therefore  be  withheld  as  unknown  to  the 
reader.  Birth,  or  rather  generation,  including  also  the  conception. 
The  Greek  wmrd  in  the  common  text  is  the  noun  (yiwrjaLs)  corre¬ 
sponding  to  the  verb  (iyevvrjcre),  which  is  repeated  nearh'"  forty  times 
in  the  preceding  context  (vs.  2-16).  The  oldest  manuscripts  and 
latest  critics  have  a  different  though  kindred  form  (yeveais)  of  wider 
import,  and  which  really  includes  the  other,  as  the  specific  sense  of 
birth  or  generation  is  involved  in  the  generic  one  of  origin,  production. 
In  either  case  there  is  a  verbal  reference  to  what  precedes  which  can¬ 
not  be  preserved  in  a  translation.  If  the  latter  reading  (yiveaLs)  be 
preferred,  the  allusion  is  to  v.  1,  where  the  genitive  case  of  the  same 
name  occurs.  As  if  he  had  said ;  Such  is  the  book  of  the  Messiah’s 
generation,  or  his  whole  descent ;  but  his  immediate  generation  was 
as  follows  :  If  the  other  (yewgaiC  be  retained,  the  allusion  is  to  the 
l  epeatcd  use  of  the  cognate  verb  {iylvv-qa^)  already  mentioned.  As 
if  he  had  said :  One  of  these  begat  another,  in  the  natural  and  ordi¬ 
nary  way ;  but  the  IMessiah  was  begotten  in  a  difterent  manner. 
On  this  wise,  or  in  modern  English,  in  this  manner,  but  in  Greek  a 
single  word  (ovreos-),  meaning  simply  thus  (or  so),  and  here  equivalent 
to  our  phrase,  as  follows.  For  (ydp),  omitted  in  the  version,  unless  it 
is  included  in  the  phrase  when  as,  is  here  equivalent  in  force  to 
namely,  ov  that  is  to  say,  but  really  refers  to  something  not  expressed. 
As  if  he  had  said  :  and  the  origin  referred  to  was  entirely  unlike  that 
of  all  the  persons  previously  mentioned,  for,  &c.  When  as,  another 


11 


MATTHEW  1,18.19. 

obsolete  expression,  analogous  to  whereas,  which  is  still  in  use,  but 
here  a  mere  periphrasis  for  a  participial  construction,  his  mother 
Mary  haring  loeen  espoused,  i.  e.  before  the  discovery  here  mentioned, 
as  implied  in  the  past  participle  (ixurja-Tev^elcrijs.')  The  Greek  verb 
strictly  means  to  court  or  woo,  but  in  the  passive  form  to  be  engaged, 
betrothed  (as  in  the  Septuagint  version  of  Deut.  22,  23.  25.  27.  28, 
compared  with  the  active  voice  in  Deut.  20,  7.)  There  are  frequent 
allusions  in  the  Old  Testament  to  the  marriage  vow  as  a  religious 
contract  (Proy.  2, 17.  Ezek.  16, 8.  Mai.  2,  14),  but  the  first  men¬ 
tion  of  a  written  bond  occurs  in  the  Apocrypha  (Tob.  2,  14.)  Ac¬ 
cording  to  the  later  Jewish  books,  the  bride  continued  in  her  father’s 
house  for  some  time  after  her  espousals.  Before  implies  nothing 
as  to  what  took  place  afterwards.  Compare  the  use  of  the  same 
phrase  {np'iv  in  Mark  14,  30.  Luke  2.  26.  22,  34.  Acts  2,  20. 
25,  16.  Came  together,  cohabited  as  man  and  wife,  either  in  the  wider 
or  the  stricter  sense,  more  probably  the  former,  which  includes  the 
other,  before  he  had  even  brought  her  home  (see  below,  on  v.  25.) 
Was  found,  not  simply  loas,  a  Hebrew  idiom  alleged  by  some  inter¬ 
preters,  but  now  rejected  by  the  best  authorities,  nor  does  it  n)ean 
detected,  or  discovered,  against  Mary’s  will ;  but  simply  loecame  hnown 
to  herself,  and  probably  through  her  to  others,  or  at  least  to  Joseph, 
her  betrothed  husband.  With  child,  literally  haring  in  {the)  worn!),  an 
idiomatic  phrase  occurring  also  in  v.  23,  24, 19.  Luke  1,  31.  1  Th.  5,  3. 
Rev.  12,  2,  and  often  in  the  Septuagint  version  (e.  g.  Gen.  16,  4.  5. 11. 
38,  24.  25.)  Of,  from,  or  hy,  as  the  source  and  the  efficient  cause. 
(See  below,  on  v.  20,  and  compare  John  3,  6.)  Ghost,  the  Saxon  word 
for  Spirit,  still  retained  in  German  (  Geist)  and  the  cognate  languages, 
but  in  modern  English  only  used  in  this  phrase,  and  in  reference  to 
the  apparition  of  departed  spirits,  though  it  may  be  still  traced  in  its 
rare  but  genuine  derivative,  ghostly,  i.  c.  spiritual  or  religious.  The 
whole  phrase  Holy  Spirit  does  not  signify  an  influence  or  power,  but 
a  person  as  in  many  other  places,  even  where  the  article,  as  here,  is 
omitted.*  The  indefinite  form  may  have  been  adopted  for  the  very 
reason  that  the  phrase  had  become  a  personal  or  proper  name. 

19.  Then  Joseph  her  husband,  being  a  just  (man),  and 
not  willing  to  make  her  a  public  example,  was  minded  to 
put  her  away  privily. 

Joseph,  howerer  (8e),  or  on  his  part,  as  the  other  and  apparently 
the  injured  party  in  this  grave  transaction.  Just  may  be  taken  either 
in  the  strict  sense  of  rendering  to  every  one  his  due  (suum  cuique), 
or  in  the  wider  sense  of  good  (as  Horace  uses  cequus),  including  mercy 

*  See  below,  r.  20.  3,11,  and  compare  Mark  1,8.  Luke  1,15.3.5.41.07.  2, 
2.5.  3,10.  4,1.  11,13.  John  1,33.  7,30.  20,22.  Acts  1,2.  5.  2,4.  4,8.31.  6,3. 
5.  7,55.  8,3.  9,17.  10,38.11,16.24.  13,52.  19,2.3.  Rom.  5,  5.  9,1.  14,17.  15. 
13. 16.  1  Cor.  2, 13.  12,  3.  2  Cor.  6,  6.  1  Th.  1,  6.  2  Tim.  1, 14.  Tit  3,  5.  Heb. 
2,4.  6,4.  1  Pet.  1, 12.  2  Pet  1,  21.  Jude  20. 


12 


MATT  H  E  W  1,  19.  20. 

and  compassion  no  less  than  rigid  conscientiousness  and  honesty. 
In  the  former  case,  the  whole  phrase,  Jusi  and  not  willing^  will  mean, 
just  and  (yet)  not  willing,  i.  e.  too  just  to  retain  her  but  too  kind  to 
expose  her.  In  the  other  case  the  sense  \s,just  and  (therefore)  not 
willing.  The  first  construction  is  the  simplest  and  requires  no  de¬ 
parture  from  the  ordinary  usage  of  the  word  just.  Willing  is  not  an 
adjective  in  Greek,  but  the  participle  of  the  verb  to  will.  What  is  de¬ 
nied,  therefore,  is  not  a  mere  disposition,  which  he  may  have  felt,  but 
a  volition  or  decided  act  of  will,  to  which  he  could  not  bring  himself. 
To  malce  an  example  of  her,  by  divulging  her  supposed  offence,  or 
making  it  the  subject  of  judicial  process.  (Wiclif :  he  was  rightful  and 
would  not  publish  her.  Tyndale:  a  perfect  man.)  He  was  inclined, 
not  he  positively  wished,  still  less  was  determined,  both  which  expres¬ 
sions  are  too  strong  for  the  original  verb  (elBovXrjbr}.)  Put  her  away, 
discharge,  or  free  her.  a  term  often  applied  elsewhere  to  divorce  (see 
below,  on  5, 31.  32.  19,  3.  7.  8.  9),  but  here  used  in  the  sense  of  a 
more  private  and  informal  separation.  According  to  Philo  and 
Mairnonides,  a  betrothed  woman  possessed  all  the  rights  of  a  wife,  and 
could  only  be  repudiated  with  the  same  formalities.  Primly,  in 
modern  English,  privately  or  secretly,  i.  e.  without  judicial  forms,  by 
mere  repudiation  as  prescribed  in  the  Mosaic  law  (Deut.  24,  1),  not 
without  a  written  instrument,  but  without  undue  publicity,  and  pos¬ 
sibly'  without  specification  of  the  cause.  This  shows  that  the  last 
words  of  the  verse  preceding  are  the  evangelist’s  own  statement  of  the 
real  cause,  and  not  a  part  of  what  was  found  (jvpe&r])  or  discovered  at 
the  time  in  question. 

20.  But  while  he  thought  on  these  things,  hehold,  the 
angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  unto  him  in  a  dream,  saying, 
Joseph,  thou  son  of  David,  fear  not  to  take  unto  thee 
Mary  thy  wife  ;  for  that  which  is  conceived  in  her  is  of 
the  Holy  Ghost. 

While  he  thought,  in  Greek  an  absolute  construction,  he  revolving 
(pondering,  considering)  these  things.  The  original  verb  denotes  an 
intellectual  act,  but  with  an  implication  of  strong  feeling  (as  in  9,  4. 
below.)  These  things,  those  related  in  the  two  preceding  verses, 
with  particular  reference  to  the  purpose  mentioned  in  v.  19. 
Angel  originally  signifies  a  messenger  (as  in  Luke  7, 24.  9, 52. 
James  2,  25),  but  is  specially  applied  in  scripture  to  the  “  minister¬ 
ing  spirits  ”  (Heb.  I,  14)  sent  forth  to  announce  and  execute  the  will 
of  God.  Angel  of  Jehovah  is  a  title  often  given  in  the  Old  Testament 
to  the  second  person  of  the  Godhead ;  but  this  meaning  would  be  here 
irrelevant.  The  angel  sent  may  have  been  Gabriel,  as  in  Luke  1,  19. 
26  ;  but  it  is  not  here  asserted.  Appeared  is  in  the  Greek  a  passive 
form  originally  meaning  was  revealed  (or  rendered  visible),  but  con¬ 
stantly  employed  as  a  deponent  verb.*  By  dream  (/car  ovap)  an  ana- 

*  See  below,  2,7.13.19.  6,5.  16,18.  9,33.13,26.  23,27.28.  24,27.30. 


13 


MATTHEW  1,20.21. 

logons  expression  to  'by  day^  by  nighty  and  perhaps  like  them  indica¬ 
tive  of  time,  but  commonly  explained  as  a  description  of  the  mode 
of  the  divine  communication.  The  Greek  noun  is  used  in  the  classics 
absolutely  as  an  adverb,  and  by  Homer  is  contrasted  with  another 
which  denotes  a  waking  vision  (6Vap  and  {ynap.)  Son  of  Jjavtid^  not 
a  pleonastic  or  superfluous  expression,  but  one  intended  to  remind  him 
of  his  own  descent  and  consequent  relation  to  the  Messiah,  and  perhaps 
thereby  to  make  him  the  more  willing  to  complete  his  marriage.  The 
use  of  the  nominative  for  the  vocative  is  common  not  only  in  the 
Hellenistic  but  the  Classical  Greek  writers.  Fear  not^  either  to  do 
wrong  or  to  incur  injury.  To  take  to  thyself,  into  thy  company,  a 
frequent  sense  of  the  Greek  verb  (irapaXaiJi^aueiv),  2,  13-21.  4,  5.  8. 
12,  45.  17,  1.  18, 16.  20, 17.  26,  37.  27,  27,  and  with  special  reference 
to  marriage  in  Herodotus  and  Xenophon.  Mariam  (or  Miriam)^  the 
original  form  of  the  Hebrew  name,  but  only  used  by  Matthew  and  Luke 
in  the  beginning  of  their  Gospels.*  Thy  wife^  not  merely  in  antici¬ 
pation,  but  de  facto  and  de  jure.  (See  above,  on  v.  19.)  Of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  as  in  v.  18  (compare  acts  5,  39.  Kom.  2,  29.) 

21.  And  she  shall  hrino*  forth  a  son,  and  thou  shalt 

O  y 

call  his  name  Jesus  :  for  he  shall  save  his  people  from 
their  sins. 

It  is  a  slight  but  significant  difference  between  this  and  the  similar 
assurance  made  to  Zecharias  (Luke  1,  13),  that  the  pronoun  {to  thee) 
is  omitted  here,  because  our  Lord  was  to  be  brought  forth  not  to  Jo¬ 
seph  but  to  God.  The  second  verb  {thou  shalt  call)  is  neither  an  im¬ 
perative  future,  as  in  the  commandments,  nor  a  mere  prediction  {thou 
wilt  call),  but  something  intermediate  between  them  {thou  art  to  call), 
implying  both  futurity  and  divine  appointment.  The  naming  of  chil¬ 
dren  is  ascribed  in  Scripture  to  both  parents  (compare  Gen.  29,  32-35. 
35,  18,  with  Exodus  2,  22),  and  to  Joseph  here  as  the  husband  of  Mary 
and  the  legal  father  of  her  offspring  (see  above,  on  v.  16).  The  name 
itself  {Jesus)  is  the  Greek  form  of  the  Hebrew  Joshua.,  which  may  be 
variously  analyzed,  but  always  with  the  same  essential  meaning,  that 
of  Saviour  or  Saloation,  and  with  reference  to  Jehovah  as  its  author. 
(See  Num.  13,  8.  16.  1  Chr.  7,  27.  Xeh.  8, 17.)  This  idea,  suggested 
by  its  very  etymology,  is  distinctly  expressed  in  the  remainder  of  the 
verse.  The  verb  translated  save  means  strictly  to  'preserve  or  heep  safe., 
but  is  secondarily  applied  to  active  rescue  or  deliverance  from  evil, 
whether  natural  or  moral,  being  equally  appropriate  to  bodily  healing 
and  to  spiritual  renovation.  His  people  would  be  naturally  understood 
by  Joseph  as  referring  to  the  chosen  race,  the  family  of  Israel,  not 
as  a  state  or  nation  merely,  but  as  a  church  or  spiritual  corporation, 
and  as  such  including  all  who  should  believe  in  Christ  as  the  ap¬ 
pointed  Saviour.  From  their  sins,  not  merely  from  the  punishment 
which  they  deserved  and  the  effects  which  they  produced,  but  from 

*  Luke  1,  27. 30.  34. 38.  39.  46.  56.  2.  5. 16. 19.  34. 


14 


MATTHEW  1,21.22. 

the  guilt  and  turpitude  of  sin  itself.  The  word  here  used  is  properly 
a  negative  description  of  moral  evil,  as  a  failure  or  short-coming, 
fj’om  a  verb  which  primarily  means  to  aim  wrong  or  to  miss  the 
mark.  But  as  this  deficiency  or  failure  has  respect  precisely  to  what 
man  owes  and  what  God  requires,  it  becomes  in  usage  one  of  the 
strongest  and  most  positive  expressions  for  sin  as  a  want  of  conformity 
to  the  law  of  God.  This  description  of  Christ’s  mission  as  a  moral  and 
religious,  not  a  secular  and  civil  one,  affords  a  key  to  his  whole  history 
as  well  as  a  sufficient  refutation  of  the  silly  notion,  that  the  salvation 
here  ascribed  to  him  (and  in  Luke  1,  08.  71.  74)  is  emancipation  from  the 
yoke  of  Koman  bondage,  and  the  restoration  of  their  former  independence. 

22.  Now  all  this  was  done,  that  it  might  he  fulfilled 
which  was  spoken  of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet,  saying. 

Here  again,  as  in  v.  18,  the  word  translated  mw  is  the  usual  con¬ 
nective  (Sc)  corresponding  to  our  and  or  l)ut^  and  continuing  the  sen¬ 
tence  without  interruption  from  the  verse  preceding.  This  construction 
raises  a  presumption  that  the  words  which  follow  are  those  of  the 
same  speaker,  namely,  of  the  angel,  a  presumption  which  can  only  be 
destroyed  by  something  in  the  words  themselves  forbidding  it.  But 
instead  of  this,  they  rather  strengthen  and  conform  it.  The  ex- 
pr  ession  all  this,  or  retaining  the  exact  form  of  the  Greek  phrase,  this 
whole  (rnatter),  a.  the  betrothal  and  conception  of  Mary,  is  more 
natural  if  uttered  by  the  angel  at  the  time  than  if  added  by  the 
evangelist  long  after.  The  verb  too  is  in  the  perfect  tense  and 
properly  means  has  (noio)  come  to  pass  (or  happened),  and  not, 
did  come  to  pass  (or  happen)  at  some  former  time.  This  distinction 
between  the  perfect  and  the  aorist  is  clearly  marked,  not  only  in 
the  theory  of  the  Greek  verb  and  the  practice  of  the  classical  Greek 
writers,  but  also  in  the  u.sage  of  the  New  Testament  where  the 
perfect  tense  of  this  verb  occurs  more  than  sixty  times,  and  with  a  few 
exceptions  (such  as  Matt.  25,0.  Horn.  16.7.  Gal.  3,17.  1  Thess.  2,1. 
1  Tim.  2,  14.  Heb.  7, 10),  sonm  of  which  are  doubtful,  not  onl}''  may 
but  must  be  rendered  by  our  perfect  to  express  its  full  force,  although 
rarely  so  translated  (as  in  Acts  4,  10.  Rom.  0,  5.  11,  25),  being  usually 
rendered  by  the  simple  past  tense  or  the  present  passive.*  The  same 
thing  is  true  of  the  participial,  infinitive,  and  pluperfect  forms, f  and  of 
some  places  where  the  oldest  copies  have  a  different  reading  (e.  g. 
Matt.  19,  8.  24,21.  John  0,25.  12,30.  14,22.  Rom.  7, 13.  Gal.  3,  24). 
That  the  two  tenses  are  not  simply  convertible  in  cither  language,  may  be 
seen  from  Rev.  10,  17.  21,  0,  where  it  is  done  means  it  has  come  topciss, 
and  could  not  be  exchanged  for  it  was  done,  it  happened,  or  it  came  to 
pass,  without  destroying,  or  at  least  obscuring  the  sense  of  the  expres- 

*  See  Mark  5,  33.  9,21.  13,  19.  14,  4.  Luke  14,22.  John  1, 15.  27.  30.  5,  14. 
Acts  4,  21.  22.  Rom.  2,25.  11,5.  1  Cor.  9,  22.  13,1.  5,17.  12,11.  Gal.  4, 16.  lleb. 
8, 14.  5,  11.  12.  12,  8.  Jas.  2, 10.  2  Pet.  2,  20. 

t  Mark  5, 14.  Luke  2, 15.  8,34-35.  56.  10,36.  24,12.  John  6,17.  12,29.  Acts 
5,7.  13,  12.  Gal.  3,17.  1  Tim.  5,9.  2,18.  Heb.  7,20-23.  11,  3.  1  John  2,  18. 


15 


<  M  A  T  T  H  E  W  1,  22. 

sion.  Such  being  the  settled  usage  of  the  form  here  used,  as  sig¬ 
nifying,  not  what  happened  once  (eyerero),  but  what  has  happened  now 
(yeyoi/e),  it  may  be  added  to  the  phrase  before  it  [all  this)  as  a  further 
reason  for  regarding  these  as  the  words  of  the  angel,  and  not  of  the 
historian.  The  conclusion  thus  reached  is  confirmed  not  only  by  the 
authority  of  Chrysostom  and  other  Greek  interpreters,  to  whom  the 
nice  distinction  of  the  tenses  must  have  been  familiar,  but  also  by  the 
parallel  cases  in  21,  4.  26,  56  below,  where  the  construction  is  precisely 
similar.  Faljilled^  a  verb  originally  filled  fidl^  in  the  ph3^sical 

or  proper  sense  (as  in  13,48.  Luke  3,5.  John  12,3.  Acts  2,  2),  and 
often  applied  figuratively  to  internal  states  or  exercises,*  and  to  comple¬ 
tion  or  completeness,  especially  in  reference  to  time.f  but  also  to  the  full 
performance  of  a  promise  or  an  obligation,];  and  to  the  accomplishment 
or  verification  of  a  prophecy,  as  here  and  often  elsewhere,  but  especially 
in  JMatthew’s  Gospel.§  That  it  might  l)e  fulfilled  is  the  strict  (and  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  highest  modern  philological  authorities  the  only)  sense  of 
the  original  expression,  as  denoting  purpose  or  deliberate  intention.  But 
besides  this  telic  use  (as  the  grammarians  call  it)  of  the  Greek  con¬ 
junction  (tVa),  some  contend  for  an  echatic  use,  denoting  not  design,  but 
mere  result  or  consequence,  however  unforeseen  or  accidental.  As  ex¬ 
amples  of  this  latter  use  are  cited  John  9,  2.  Bom.  5, 20.  11, 11,  and 
the  case  before  us,  with  the  many  others  like  it,  where  the  sense  will 
then  be,  so  that  it  was  fulfilled.  As  the  other  sense,  however,  is  at 
once  the  proper  and  the  common  one,  the  best  interpreters  consider  it 
as  doubly  entitled  to  the  preference  in  this  case.  It  does  not  mean, 
however,  that  the  prediction  was  the  cause  of  the  event,  which  some 
make  an  objection  to  the  telic  explanation,  but  that  the  event  was 
necessary  to  the  execution  of  the  divine  purpose  as  expressed  in  the 
prediction  which  was  spolcen^  literally,  the  (thing)  spoTcen.^  not  merely 
written,  but  originally  uttered  viva  voce.  Of  the  Lord  l)y  the  prophet.^ 
or  as  it  might  be  rendered  more  explicitly  and  more  agreeably  to 
modern  usage,  l)y  the  Lord  (as  the  prime  agent  or  the  ultimate  author 
of  the  revelation)  through  the  prophet  (as  the  instrumental  agent  or 
the  organ  of  communication).  The  prophet  is  Isaiah,  as  expressed  in 
one  old  manuscript  (the  Codex  Bezse),  in  whose  writings  the  quota¬ 
tion  is  still  extant  (see  Isai.  7,  14),  and  of  whose  divine  legation  we 
have  here  inspired  if  not  angelic  attestation.  This  is  the  first  appear¬ 
ance  of  a  feature  characterizing  this  whole  gospel,  namely  the  express 
quotation  of  Old  Testament  predictions  which  had  been  fulfilled  in  the 
life  of  Christ. 


*  See  Luke  2,  40.  John  3,  29.  15, 11.  16,  6.  24.  17, 13.  Acts  2,  28.  5,  3.  13, 52. 
Rom.  1,29.  15,13.14.  2  Cor.  7,4.  Eph.  3, 19.  5,18.  Phil.  1,11.  Col.  1,  9.  2  Tim. 
1,  4.  1  John  1,  4.  2  John  12. 

t  See  23,  32.  Mark  1, 15.  Luke  7, 1.  9,  31.  21,  24.  John  7,  8.  Acts  7,  23.  30.  9, 
23.  12,25.  13,25.  14,20.  19,21.  24,27.  Rev.  6,11. 

X  See  3, 15.  5, 17.  Luke  1,  20.  Rom.  8,  4.  13,  8.  2  Cor.  10,  0.  Gal.  5, 14.  Col. 
1  25  4  17  Jas  2  23 

§”s4  below,  2,15.17.23.  4,14.  8,17.  12,17.  13,35.  21,4.  26,54.56.  27, 
9.  85. 


16 


MATTHEW  1,  23. 


23.  Behold,  a  virgin  shall  he  with  child,  and  shall 
bring  forth  a  son,  and  they  shall  call  his  name  Emmanuel  ; 
which  being  interpreted  is,  God  with  us. 

The  quotation  is  made  almost  precisely  in  the  terms  of  the  Septua- 
gint  version.  One  of  the  two  variations  for  X?7\//erai)  exists  only 
in  relation  to  the  Vatican  text  of  the  Seventy,  the  Alexandrian  agree¬ 
ing  with  the  text  of  Matthew.  This  difference  is  merely  one  of  form, 
without  the  least  effect  upon  the  meaning.  The  other  variation 
(KaXeaova-L  for  KaXea-eis)  is  of  more  significance,  though  really  of  little 
moment,  as  it  merely  substitutes  the  indefinite  expression,  they  shall 
call,  equivalent  to  shall  he  called  (compare  Luke  12,  20)  for  the  definite 
address  to  the  mother  {thou  shalt  call),  which  is  itself  most  probably 
a  substitute  for  the  third  person  {she  shall  call)  of  the  Hebrew  text.* * * § 
The  essential  point  is  the  act  of  naming,  not  the  person  who  performed 
it.  Another  variation,  both  of  the  Septuagint  and  Gospel,  from  the  pre¬ 
cise  form  of  the  Hebrew  text,  is  the  substitution  of  the  future  {shall  con¬ 
cede  or  he  with  child)  for  the  present,  as  implied  though  not  expressed  in 
the  original  construction,  which  is  participial  or  adjective,  not  verbal. 
Behold,  the  virgin  pregnant  (or  icith  child),  as  if  actually  present  to  the 
prophet’s  senses.  But  this  too  is  a  merely  formal  difference,  the  words 
confessedly  relating  to  the  future,  whether  proximate  or  distant.  The 
Hebrew  word  translated  virgin  {rraij^evos)  is  not  the  usual  equivalent  of 
these  Greek  and  English  terms,  but  one  which  properly  denotes  a  girl, 
maiden,  or  young  woman,  and  is  so  rendered  by  the  other  ancient 
Greek  translators  {veiivis).  Some  suppose  this  difference  in  the  old 
Greek  versions  to  be  connected  with  a  different  interpretation  of  the 
passage ;  but  the  two  are  really  equivalent,  as  the  Hebrew  word  (rnabr) 
is  always  applied  elsewhere  to  unmarried  women, f  and  as  the 
stronger  terms,  in  Hebrew  (nb^in^),  Greek  {vrap'ieuos),  Latin  {virgo), 
are  occasionally  used  of  wives  and  mothers  so  that  the  idea  of 
a  virgin  is  as  strongly  expressed  here  as  it  could  be.  A  virgin 
greatly  weakens  the  original  expression,  W'hich  is  definite  in  Greek 
(17  nap’ievos)  as  well  as  Hebrew  (n^bi'ii),  and  denotes  the  (particu¬ 
lar)  virgin  m  whom  the  prediction  was  especially  verified.  Lo 
(or  hehold),  as  usual,  introduces  something  novel,  unexpected,  and 
surprising.  The  name  in  this  case  is  descriptive,  and  was  not  to 
be  actually  borne  in  real  life,  as  Jesus  was.  They  shall  call,  i.  e. 
they  shall  have  cause  or  occasion,  so  to  call  him ;  he  .shall  be  en¬ 
titled  to  the  name  Immanuel.  God  with  us  has  both  a  lower  and 
a  higher  sense,  sometimes  denoting  a  gracious  or  providential  pres¬ 
ence  and  protection, §  but  in  this  case  an  essential  and  personal 
divine  manifestation.  Interpreted,  translated  out  of  Hebrew  into 

*  (riN'-ip),  in  Lev.  25,21.  Ps.  118,  23.  Gen.  33,11;  but  compare  Gen. 

16, 11,  where  the  same  form  is  undoubtedly  the  second  person. 

t  See  Gen.  24, 43.  Ex.  2,  8.  Ps.  68,  26.  Prov.  80, 19.  Song  Sol.  1, 3.  6,  8. 
j  See  Joel  1,  8.  Homer  II.  2,  514.  Virgil  Eel.  6,  47.  -En.  1,  493. 

§  See  Josh.  1,5.  Ps.  46,7.  11.  89,25.  Jer.  1,  8.  Isai.  43,  21. 


17 


MATTHEW  1,23.24.25. 

Greek  (Tyndale ;  by  interpretation,  Cranmer :  wTiic\  if  a  man  in¬ 
terpret  it,  is  as  much  as  to  say)^  which  some  regard  as  a  proof  that 
Matthew  was  originally  written  in  the  latter  language;  but  although 
this  is  probable  for  other  reasons  (see  above,  the  general  introduction 
p.  1),  it  does  not  follow  necessarily  from  this  clause  which  might  have 
been  inserted  by  the  Greek  translator.  The  application  of  this  prophecy 
to  Christ  is  not  a  mere  accommodation,  meaning  that  the  words,  orig¬ 
inally  used  in  one  sense  and  in  reference  to  one  subject,  might  now  be 
repeated  in  another  sense  and  of  another  subject ;  for  this  does  not 
satisfy  the  strong  terms  of  the  passage  {all  this  happened  that  it  might 
he  fulfilled),  nor  would  such  a  fanciful  coincidence  have  been  alleged 
with  so  much  emphasis  by  Matthew,  still  less  by  the  Angel.  The  only 
sense  that  can  be  reasonably  put  upon  the  words  is,  that  the  mirac¬ 
ulous  conception  of  Messiah  was  predicted  by  Isaiah  in  the  words 
here  quoted.  This  essential  meaning  is  not  affected  by  the  question 
whether  the  prediction  was  a  mediate  or  immediate,  twofold  or  ex¬ 
clusive  one ;  that  is  to  say,  whether  it  was  first  fulfilled  in  the  natural 
birth  of  a  child  soon  after  it  was  uttered,  and  the  subsequent  deliverance 
of  Judah  from  invasion,  but  again  fulfilled,  and  in  a  higher  sense,  in  the 
nativity  of  Christ ;  or  whether  it  related  only  to  the  latter,  and  pre¬ 
sented  it  to  Ahaz  as  a  pledge  that  the  chosen  people  could  not  be  de¬ 
stroyed  until  jMessiah  came.  Both  these  opinions  are  maintained  by 
eminent  interpreters,  whose  arguments,  however,  belong  rather  to  the 
exposition  of  Isaiah  than  of  Matthew.  His  authoritative  exposition  of 
the  prophecy  extends  no  further  than  the  fact  of  its  fulfilment  in  the 
miraculous  conception  of  the  Saviour. 

24.  Then  Joseph,  being  raised  from  sleep,  did  as  the 
angel  of  the  Lord  had  bidden  him,  and  took  unto  him  his 
wife. 

v 

This  verse  records  the  execution  of  the  order  sent  to  Joseph  through 
the  Angel,  in  a  form  verj''  common  both  in  Homer  and  the  Scriptures, 
i.  c.  by  repeating  the  terms  of  the  command  from  v.  20,  in  the  same 
sense  that  was  there  explained.  His  wife  (like  thy  wife  in  the  verse 
referred  to)  may  either  simply  designate  the  person  {her  who  was  his 
wife),  or  have  the  more  emphatic  sense  of  as  (or  for)  his  wife.  The 
former  construction  is  more  natural,  especially  in  this  case,  where 
Mary  is  not  named,  and  is  commonly  adopted  by  the  best  interpreters. 
Had  hidden  is  in  Greek  a  verb  originally  meaning  to  arrange,  array, 
and  specially  applied,  as  a  military  term,  to  the  posting  or  stationing 
of  troops,  but  also  employed  by  the  best  Attic  writers  in  the  secondary 
sense  of  enjoining  any  thing  on  a  person,  or  (without  an  accusative,  as 
here)  commanding  him. 

25.  And  knew  lier  not  till  slie  bad  brought  forth 
her  first-born  son  :  and  he  called  his  name  Jesus. 


18 


MATTHEW  1,  25. 

This  verse  has  been  the  subject  of  dispute  for  ages,  not  as  to  what 
it  expresses,  but  as  to  what  it  implies.  The  question  is  not  what 
the  words  directly  mean,  but  what  is  the  inference  to  be  drawn  from 
them.  Knew  her  not,  as  his  wife,  cohabited  with  her  only  in  the  pri¬ 
mary  but  wider  sense  of  the  expression,  as  denoting  residence  to¬ 
gether.  The  remainder  of  the  verse  seems  to  limit  this  negation  to 
the  time  which  intervened  between  the  divine  communication  made  to 
Joseph  and  the  birth  of  Christ.  From  this  it  is  now  inferred  by 
some  interpreters  that  after  that  event  other  children  were  born  to 
Joseph  and  Mary,  and  that  these  are  mentioned  in  the  sequel  as  the 
brothers  and  sisters  of  our  Lord.*  This  is  supposed  to  be  necessa¬ 
rily  implied  in  Matthew’s  use  both  of  the  particle  (until)  and  of  the 
adjective  (Jirst-horn).]  But  these  implications,  although  plausible,  are 
not  necessary  or  certain.  Until,  and  its  equivalents  in  other  lan¬ 
guages  (n:y,  ecor,  donee),  afBrm  and  deny  nothing  beyond  the  terminus 

ad  quern  which  they  are  used  to  designate,  but  leave  the  rest  to  be  dis¬ 
covered  in  some*  other  way.  The  Greek  interpreters  assert  this  to  be 
the  usage  of  the  word  employed  in  this  case  (ecos),  and  refer  for  proof 
to  Gen.  8,  7  and  Ps.  110,  1,  to  which  others  have  added  Isai.  42,  3,  as 
quoted  in  Matt.  12,  20,  where  the  meaning  cannot  be  that  after  he 
has  sent  forth  judgment  unto  victory  he  will  begin  to  bruise  the 
broken  reed  and  quench  the  smoking  flax.  So  too  in  1  Tim.  4,  13, 
Paul  cannot  mean  to  say  that  after  he  comes  Timothy  must  cease  to 
read,  exhort,  and  teach.  Nor  is  the  contrary  affirmed  in  either  case, 
but  simply  left  to  be  determined  by  the  context  or  the  nature  of  the 
case.  These  examples  are  sufficient  to  establish  the  position,  that  the 
inference  in  question  from  the  use  of  the  word  till,  however  natural, 
is  not  conclusive;  or  in  other  words,  that  this  expression  cannot  prove 
the  fact  of  subsequent  cohabitation  in  the  face  of  cogent  reasons  for 
disputing  it.  As  to  the  woTdi  first-born,  the  mistake  lies  in  making  it 
a  popular  expression,  to  be  interpreted  by  common  usage,  whereas  it 
is  a  technical  term  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  as  such  familiar  to  the 
Jews  of  that  day  both  in  Greek  and  Hebrew,  being  constantly  em¬ 
ployed  in  the  Septuagint  version,  to  translate  the  Hebrew  term  ap¬ 
plied  to  the  firstling  both  of  man  and  beast,  but  by  way  of  eminence 
to  the  human  child  by  which  the  womb  was  opened,  or  the  woman 
first  became  a  mother.  Such  children  were  devoted  to  God,  partly  in 
commemoration  of  the  Hebrew  first-born  being  spared  when  those  of 
Egypt  were  destroyed.^  Can  it  be  supposed  that  the  destroying  angel 
on  that  memorable  night  passed  by  those  Egyptian  families  in  which 
there  was  a  single  child ;  or  that  the  law  for  the  redemption  of  the 
first-born  was  suspended  till  a  second  child  was  born  1  If  not,  the 
legal  efithet  first-born  included  not  only  the  eldest  but  also  only  chil- 

*  See  ch.  12,  4(5.  13,  55.  John  7,  3.  1  Cor.  15,  7.  Gal.  1,  19. 

t  Wiclif  and  Cranmer :  Jirat-begoUen.  Tyndale;  first  son.  Geneva  and 

t  See  Ex.  4,  22.’ 23.  11,5.  12,12.29.  13,2.13.15.  22,29.  34,20.  Lev.  27,  26. 
Num.  3,  12.  13.  40-51.  8,  16-18.  18,  15-17.  33,  4.  Dent.  15, 19,  and  compare 
Neh.  10,  36.  Ps.  77, 56.  104, 36.  134,  8.  135, 10. 


MATTHEW  2,  1. 


19 


dren,  and  its  constant  use  in  this  extended  application  in  th'e  law  not 
only  might  but  must  have  made  it  perfectly  intelligible  as  applied  to 
Jesus  though  he  were  the  sole  child  of  his  mother.  It  is  not  true, 
therefore,  as  is  frequently  alleged'  b}?"  modern  writers,  that  the  use  of 
either  of  these  terms  by  Matthew  necessarily  implies  the  birth  of 
other  children.  Equally  groundless  is  the  common  allegation  that  no 
other  inference  would  ever  have  been  thought  of,  but  for  a  superstitious 
reverence  for  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  an  ascetic  over-estimate  of  virgin¬ 
ity  as  a  holier  state  than  that  of  marriage.  Entirely  apart  from  such 
corruptions  and  anterior  to  their  appearance,  there  was  a  strong  ground 
for  believing  the  virginity  of  our  Lord’s  mother  to  have  been  perpet¬ 
ual,  afforded  by  the  obvious  consideration,  that  the  same  reasons  which 
required  it  before  his  birth  might  possibly  at  least  require  it  after¬ 
wards.  This  analogy  is  not  at  all  dependent  on  the  nature  of  those 
reasons,  which  to  us  may  be  inscrutable,  but  simply  on  the  fact  of 
their  existence.  If,/l>r  any  reason^  it  would  not  have  been  becoming 
or  expedient  that  the  woman  chosen  to  be  the  mother  of  our  Loi'd 
should  sustain  the  same  relation  to  any  other  child  before  his  birth, 
why  was  it  any  more  becoming  or  expedient  after  he  was  born  ?  This 
view  of  the  matter  may  at  least  induce  us  to  suspend  our  judgment 
on  this  delicate  and  interesting  question,  without  any  fear  of  popish  or 
ascetic  superstition,  till  the  history  itself  shall  furnish  further  data  for 
a  definite  conclusion.  (See  below,  on  10,  3.  12,  47.  13,  55.  28,  10.) 
In  the  mean  time,  all  that  this  verse  necessarily  imports  is  that  lier 
virginity  remained  unimpaired,  if  not  forever,  yet  at  least  till  she  be¬ 
came  a  mother,  which  is  the  essential  fact  expressed  by  the  phrase, 
brought  forth  her  first-born  son,  corresponding  iQvm.  (begat) 

in  the  preceding  genealogy  denotes  the  analogous  relation  of  paterni¬ 
ty.  (See  above,  on  v.  2.)  The  omission  of  the  word  (ttpcctotokou) 
from  which  this  whole  discussion  has  arisen,  in  the  oldest  extant  man¬ 
uscript  (the  Codex  Vaticanus)  and  in  the  old  Egyptian  versions, 
though  regarded  by  the  latest  critics  as  a  sufficient  reason  for  expun¬ 
ging  it,  may  be  a  mere  attempt  of  the  transcribers  and  translators  to 
cut  the  knot  which  they  despaired  of  loosing. 


CHAPTER  II. 

In  further  prosecution  of  his  purpose  to  demonstrate  the  Messiahship 
of  Jesus,  Matthew  now  relates  his  recognition  by  representatives  of 
the  Gentile  world,  closely  connected,  both  in  prophecy  and  history, 
with  his  birth  in  Bethlehem,  and  with  his  escape  from  the  murderous 
designs  of  Herod,  by  being  carried  into  Egypt,  his  return  thence,  and 
his  subsequent  residence  in  Nazareth,  all  which  the  Evangelist  exhib¬ 
its  as  the  fulfilment  of  Old  Testament  predictions.  The  contents  of 


20 


MATTHEW  2,  1. 


this  chapter  have  peculiar  interest,  not  only  on  their  own  account,  but 
also  as  atfording  the  most  striking  illustration  of  the  plan  on  which 
this  Gospel  is  constructed,  and  of  its  distinctive  character,  as  being 
not  a  mere  history  but  a  historical  argument  in  favour  of  our  Lord’s 
Messiahship. 

1.  Now  when  Jesus  was  horn  in  Bethlehem  of  Judea, 
in  the  days  of  Herod  the  king,  behold,  there  came  wise 
men  from  the  east  to  Jerusalem. 

The  actual  nativity  of  Christ  is  only  recorded  incidentally  by  Mat¬ 
thew,  in  the  last  verse  of  the  preceding  chapter,  and  again  in  this 
verse,  as  an  event  which  had  already  taken  place.  A  detailed  account 
of  the  time,  place,  and  other  circumstances,  is  supplied  by  Luke  (2, 
1-20).  The  connective  particle  (Se)  makes  this  as  a  direct  continuation 
of  the  narrative  in  ch.  1.  ‘  He  knew  her  not  until  she  had  brought 

forth  her  first-born  son,  and  when  he  was  brought  forth,’  &c.  Jesus 
Tianing  })een  produced,  i.  e.  conceived  and  born,  both  which  ideas  are 
included  in  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  verb,  and  its  corresponding 
noun  (see  above,  on  1,  2.  18).  Bethlehem  (the  house  of  bread),  an 
ancient  town  belonging  to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  as  such  distin¬ 
guished  from  another  of  the  same  name  in  the  tribe  of  Zebulon  (Josh. 
19,  15).  It  is  still  in  existence,  about  six  miles  south  or  south-west 
of  Jerusalem.  Though  not  a  town  of  large  size  or  political  import¬ 
ance,  it  was  early  famous  as  the  residence  of  Jesse  and  the  birth-place 
of  David.  (1  Sam.  16,  1.  17,  58.  Luke  1,  11.  John  7,  42.)  Ilerod^ 
commonly  surnamed  the  Great,  was  the  son  of  Antipater,  an  Idumean 
and  the  confidential  counsellor  of  the  last  of  the  Maccabees  or  Has- 
monean  princes,  who  reigned  in  Judea  from  the  time  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  (B.  C.  175)  to  the  Homan  conquest  (B.  C.  53).  Herod,  at 
a  very  early  age,  was  governor  of  Galilee,  but  having  taken  refuge 
from  his  enemies  at  Rome,  there  enjoyed  the  favour  of  Mark  Anthony 
and  Octavian  (afterwards  Augustus)  and  by  order  of  the  Senate  was 
crowned  king  of  the  Jews  at  the  Capitol.  With  the  aid  of  the  Roman 
General  Sosius,  he  obtained  possession  of  his  kingdom  and  reignod 
thirty-seven  years,  with  great  talent  and  success  as  a  secular  ruler,  but 
with  great  severity  and  jealousy  towards  all  competitors  and  rivals, 
not  excepting  his  own  children  and  the  Hasmonean  family  with  which 
he  intermarried.  Hence  he  is  chargeable  with  acts  of  extreme  cruelty, 
including  the  murder  of  his  wife  and  three  sons.  His  ruling  passion 
was  the  love  of  architectural  embellishment,  which  he  indulged  by 
rebuilding  and  beautifying  many  towns  in  Palestine  and  elsewhere, 
but  especially  by  the  renovation  of  the  temple  (see  below,  on  24,  1, 
and  compare  John  2,  20).  The  days  is  an  indefinite  expression  appli¬ 
cable  to  his  whole  life  or  his  long  reign,  but  here  applied  to  its  conclu¬ 
sion.  What  is  here  recorded  must,  however,  have  occurred  at  least 
forty  days  before  his  death,  as  we  know  from  Josephus  that  his  last 
forty  days  were  spent,  not  at  Jerusalem,  but  at  Jericho  and  the  baths 


MATTHEW  2,1.2. 


21 


of  CaIHrhoe.  Behold,  as  usual,  implies  that  their  coming  was  un¬ 
locked  for  and  surprising  (see  above,  on  1,  23).  Came  is  in  Greek  a 
verb  without  exact  equivalent  in  English,  strictly  meaning  loecamenear 
(or  present),  but  of  course  implying  previous  arrival.  Wise  men  is  Tyn- 
dale’s  vague  translation  of  Magi  or  Magians,  a  word  used  by  Herod¬ 
otus  to  signify  the  learned  tribe  or  caste  among  the  ancient  Medians 
or  Persians,  whose  cultivation  of  astrology  and  other  occult  sciences 
gave  rise  to  the  derivative  terms  magic,  magical,  magician.  A  trace 
of  this  usage  may  be  found  in  the  phrase  Rab-mag  (chief  magician)  as 
the  title  of  an  officer  or  courtier  at  the  camp  of  Babylon  (Jer.  39,  3), 
perhaps  the  same  place  which  was  occupied  by  Daniel  (2,  48).  The 
word  is  here  used  without  any  implication  of  unlawful  or  disreputable 
practices.  Wiclif  translates  it  astromyens  (astronomers),  and  the 
Rhemish  version  sages.  That  the  providential  representatives  of 
heathendom  were  chosen  from  this  class,  may  imply  the  existence  of 
some  old  tradition,  perhaps  connected  with  the  record  or  the  memory 
of  astronomical  phenomena.  (See  below,  upon  the  next  verse.)  The 
word  translated  east  means  originally  rise  or  rising,  and  is  elsewhere 
coupled  with  the  sun  (as  in  Rev.  7,  2.  16,  12),  but  here  denotes  that 
quarter  of  the  heavens  or  the  earth.  The  form  is  plural,  as  in  8,  11. 
24,  27  below,  where  the  term  is  also  used  in  a  vague  but  local  sense. 
It  cannot  therefore  be  determined  from  the  word  itself  whether  these 
Magi  came  from  Persia,  Arabia,  Babylonia,  or  some  still  remoter  coun¬ 
try.  An  old  ecclesiastical  tradition  makes  them  three  in  number 
(from  the  three  gifts  mentioned  in  v,  11)  and  the  representatives  of  as 
many  countries.  Caspar,  Melchior,  and  Balthazar,  are  the  names 
attached  to  them  by  this  tradition,  which  also  makes  them  kings  of 
their  respective  countries.  Hence  “  The  Three  Kings,”  is  among  the 
most  familiar  popular  traditions  of  the  old  world,  even  on  the  signs 
of  shops  and  taverns.  From  the  east  is  construed  by  the  best  inter¬ 
preters,  not  with  the  verb  but  with  the  noun,  loise  men  from  the  east, 
i.  e.  originating  or  belonging  there.  Jerusalem  (here  Hierosolyma), 
anciently  called  Salem  (Gen.  14,  18.  Ps.  76,  2,  and  Jehus  (Judg,  19, 
10.  11),  in  an  elevated  situation  nearly  midway  between  the  Mediter¬ 
ranean  and  the  Dead  Sea,  conquered  by  David  from  the  Jebusites  (2 
Sam.  5,  6-9),  and  thenceforth  the  political  capital  of  Israel  and  seat  of 
the  theocracy.  Having  been  destroyed  at  the  Babylonian  conquest 
(2  Kings  25,  8-10),  it  was  rebuilt  at  the  Restoration  (Neh.  2,  5.  3, 
1-32),  and  retained  its  metropolitan  pre-eminence  under  Herod  and 
the  Romans.  To  this  well-known  centre  the  wise  men  from  the  cast 
would  of  course  resort  in  the  first  instance. 


2.  Saying,  Where  is  he  that  is  born  King  of  the 
Jews  ?  for  we  have  seen  his  star  in  the  east,  and  are 
come  to  worship  him. 

This  verse  assigns  the  reason  of  their  visit,  as  given  by  themselves 
{saying).  They  assume  the  fact  of  his  nativity  as  certain,  and  the 


22 


MATTHEW  2,2. 


time  as  known  already  (see  below,  on  v.  7),  and  merely  inquire  for 
the  place,  as  something  not  revealed  or  ascertainable  from  astronomi¬ 
cal  phenomena.  The  {one)  l)orn^  already,  as  the  past  participle  {t^x^Tls 
from  the  verb  used  in  1,  25),  denotes.  The  Genevca  Bible  follows  the 
Peshito  in  construing  the  words  thus,  that  Icing  of  {the)  Jews  that  is 
'born.  But  the  common  version  (which  is  Tyndale’s)  agrees  better 
with  the  form  of  the  original.  King  of  the  Jews^  the  title  applied  to 
the  Messiah  in  the  New  Testament  by  Gentiles  (see  below,  27,  29. 
37,  and  compare  John  18,  33),  while  the  Jews  themselves  called  him 
King  of  Israel  (see  below,  27,  42,  and  compare  John  1,  50.  12,  13.) 
After  the  downfall  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  particularly 
after  the  return  from  exile,  the  whole  nation  being  merged  in  Judah, 
the  name  Jew  became  a  general  one,  especially  with  foreigners,  and  is 
applied  in  the  New  Testament,  not  only  to  the  people  of  Judea  in  the 
strict  sense,  but  to  those  of  Galilee,  in  reference  both  to  their  religion 
and  their  national  descent  (as  in  Luke  7,  3.  John  2,  0.  Acts  10,  28, 
and  elsewhere).  As  the  throne  of  David  had  been  vacant  now  for 
ages,  the  inquiry  of  the  wise  men  had  respect  not  to  the  actual  sov¬ 
ereign,  who  was  not  an  Israelite  at  all,  but  to  the  hereditary  rightful 
sovereign  who  had  just  been  born.  This  meaning  of  the  question  will 
account  for  the  effect  which  it  produced  according  to  the  next  verse. 
Hare  seen,  or  more  exactly,  saw,  i.  e.  on  a  particular  occasion  and 
some  time  ago.  Even  if  they  came  no  further  than  from  Babylonia, 
they  may  have  been  as  long  upon  the  road  as  Ezra  and  his  colony,  to 
Avit,  four  months  (see  Ezr.  7,  9)  ;  but  this  is  quite  uncertain  and  was 
not  intended  to  be  made  known  by  this  narrative.  His  star,  i.  e.  one 
relating  or  belonging  to  him,  either  by  a  special  revelation,  or  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  principles  of  their  astronomy,  which  partook  no  doubt  of 
what  we  call  astrology,  i.  e.  prognostication  of  the  future  from  the 
relative  positions  of  the  heavenly  bodies.  Their  conclusions  may 
however  have  been  drawn  from  real  astronomical  phenomena,  inter¬ 
preted  according  to  some  old  tradition,  perhaps,  that  of  Balaam  (Num. 
21,  17),  or  Daniel’s  prediction  of  the  seventy  weeks  (Dan.  9,  24),  both 
of  which  were  probably  preserved  in  the  east,  or  at  least  in  Babylonia. 
Star  is  in  Greek  a  word  applied  to  any  luminary  in  the  heavens, 
whether  fixed  star,  planet,  comet  or  meteor,  all  which  have  been  sup¬ 
posed  by  different  interpreters  to  be  intended  here.  More  than  one 
eminent  astronomer  has  understood  it  as  referring  to  a  remarkable 
conjunction  of  the  planets  Jupiter  and  Saturn  in  the  sign  of  Pisces, 
which  is  said  to  have  occurred  three  times  in  the  year  747  after  the 
building  of  Rome.  The  first  of  these  conjunctions  may  have  been  ob¬ 
served  in  Babylonia  and  the  last  in  Judea  (see  below,  on  v.  9).  The 
star  may  then  denote  the  conjunction  itself,  which  is  not  inconsistent 
with  the  vague  use  of  the  Greek  word,  or  the  appearance  of  a  new  star, 
in  the  strict  sense  by  which  the  conjunction  may  have  been  accompa¬ 
nied,  as  it  was  (according  to  Kepler)  in  the  year  1C04.  By  a  sin¬ 
gular  coincidence  Abarbanel,  a  famous  Jewish  writer  of  the  fifteenth 
century,  without  alluding  to  the  cases  just  referred  to,  speaks  of  a 
similar  conjunction  in  the  same  sign  of  the  Zodiac  as  having  pro- 


23 


MATTHEW  2,2. 

ceded  the  birth  of  Moses,  and  as  having  been  repeated  in  his  own 
day,  (A.  D.  14G3),  from  which  he  infers  that  the  Messiah  was  about 
to  appear.  Tlie  concurrence  is  in  this  case  so  remarkable,  and 
the  explanation  recommended  by  such  high  scientific  authority, 
that  it  would  probably  have  been  universally  adopted,  but  for  the 
foregone  conclusion,  in  the  minds  of  many,  that  the  birth  of  Christ 
took  place  in  a  different  year.  But  that  assumption  is  so  doubtful, 
and  the  views  of  the  best  writers  so  discordant,  that  it  can  scarcely  be 
allowed  to  decide  the  question  now  before  us,  but  may  rather  be  de¬ 
cided  by  it.  This  astronomical  solution  is,  at  all  events,  both  from  its 
scientific  character  and  from  the  high  authority  on  which  it  rests, 
more  satisfactory  than  the  assumption  of  a  transient  meteor,  a  comet, 
or  a  purely  miraculous  appearance,  which  would  here  be  less  impress¬ 
ive  than  a  natural  phenomenon,  coincident  with  such  a  juncture  in  the 
moral  world,  and  showing  both  to  be  under  the  same  infinitely  power¬ 
ful  and  wise  control.  This  hypothesis  moreover  agrees  best  with  the 
traditional  devotion  of  the  wise  men  of  the  East  (i.  e.  of  Babylonia  and 
the  adjacent  regions  watered  by  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates)  to  astron¬ 
omy,  which  would  naturally  lead  them  to  observe  such  unusual  ap¬ 
pearances  and  perhaps  to  compare  them  with  others  of  the  same  kind, 
preserved  by  the  tradition  of  their  science,  and  connected  with  previous 
critical  conjunctures  in  the  history  of  Israel,  from  which  they  might, 
erroneously  or  otherwise,  infer  that  what  they  now  saw  was  a  premo¬ 
nition  of  the  advent  of  that  great  deliverer,  for  whom,  according  to  two 
Boman  historians,  the  whole'East  had  long  been  looking.*  This  is  a 
testimony  too  explicit  and  unqualified  to  be  explained  away,  as  some 
modern  sceptics  have  attempted,  as  a  mere  misapprehension  or  tran¬ 
scription  of  a  passage  in  Josephus,  where  he  disingenuously  represents 
the  Messianic  prophecies  of  Scripture  as  pointing  to  Vespasian,  who 
was  proclaimed  Emperor,  on  the  death  of  Vitellius,  by  the  army  under 
his  command  in  Palestine.  What  is  most  important,  after  all,  how¬ 
ever,  is  to  distinguish  even  the  most  plausible  conjectures  from  the 
simple  statement  of  the  wise  men  in  the  text,  that  they  had  seen  what 
they  regarded  as  Jiis  star^  i.  e.  a  heavenly  phenomenon  relating  to  him. 
In  the  east  may  be  construed  either  with  the  subject  or  the  object  of 
the  verb,  we  (while  still)  in  the  east  saw  his  star,  or,  loe  saw  his  star 
(appearing)  in  the  east,  an  ambiguity  of  syntax  which  leaves  it  doubt¬ 
ful  in  what  part  of  the  heavens  they  beheld  it.  Some  interpreters 
evade  the  solution  of  this  question  by  giving  the  Greek  noun  {avaruhi]) 
its  primary  sense  of  rise  or  rising  (see  above,  on  v.  1),  which  it  has  in 
one  place  (Luke  1,  78),  though  translated  daysj^ring.  The  principal 
objection  to  this  explanation  is  the  want  of  any  reason  for  refei-ring  to 
the  rise  any  more  than  to  the  culmination  of  the  star.  Are  come,,  or  more 
exactly,  came,  that  is,  just  now,  or  lately,  which  is  substantially  the 
meaning  of  the  common  version.  Worship,  a  Greek  verb  which  orig- 

*  Pererebucrat  Oriente  toto  vetus  et  constans  opinio,  esse  in  fatis  ut  eo  tem¬ 
pore  Judaea  prolecti  rerum  potirentur  {Sueton-  Ve^^pas.  IV.)  Pluribus  persuasio 
iiierat,  antiquis  saeerdotum  Uteris  contineri,  eo  ipso  tempore  foi'e  ut  valesceret 
Oriens,  profecti  Judaea  rerum  ^qVvcqvPwx  {Tacit.  Annal  V.  13). 


24 


MATTHEW  2,3.4. 

inally  means  to  kiss  the  hand,  the  garments,  or  the  ground  before  one, 
as  ail  oriental  method  of  expressing  the  profoundest  reverence,  and 
therefore  specially  applied  to  the  act  of  doing  homage  to  a  Sovereign, 
which  in  ancient  times,  and  in  the  east  especially,  was  seldom  free  from 
some  idolatrous  ascription  of  divine  honours  even  to  a  human  being. 
There  is  therefore  the  less  reason  for  explaining  the  word  here  of 
purely  civil  reverence  or  homage,  to  perform  w^hich  could  not  well  be 
the  sole  object  of  these  Magi  in  their  journey  from  the  east,  which 
would  have  been  wholly  out  of  place  upon  the  part  of  Herod  (see  be¬ 
low,  on  V.  8).  The  meaning,  therefore,  must  be  that  they  came  to  do 
reverence  and  homage  to  a  new-born  child,  as  the  Messiah,  the  long- 
expected  Icing  of  the  Jews^  the  benefits  of  whose  reign  were  to  extend 
to  other  nations  also. 

3.  When  Herod  the  king  had  heard  (these  things),  he 
was  troubled,  and  all  Jerusalem  with  him. 

The  effect  of  this  unexpected  visit  and  inquiry  was  such  as  might 
have  been  expected.  And  hearing  (^^,  or  this^  or  these  things),  Herod 
the  Icing,  de  facto,  as  distinguished  from  the  king  de  jure,  who  had 
just  been  born.  Troubled,  disturbed,  agitated^  with  jealous  fear  of  a 
competitor,  which  is  known  to  have  been  one  of  Herod’s  weaknesses, 
and  one  which  seems  to  have  continued  with  him  till  his  death,  as 
such  infirmities  often  do,  even  when  rendered  most  irrational  by  age 
or  other  circumstances.  All  Jerusalem,  a  natural  and  common  figure 
for  its  whole  population,  which  occurs  again  in  3,  5  below.  With  him 
may  mean  in  sympathy  with  him,  but  more  probably  denotes  mere  co¬ 
incidence  of  time  and  place.  The  causes  of  the  agitation  cannot  have 
been  perfectly  identical.  While  Herod  trembled  for  his  throne,  the 
people  would  naturally  dread  his  violence,  or  the  troubles  incident  to 
any  revolution,  or,  as  some  suppose,  the  evils  which  were  expected  to 
precede  the  reign  of  the  Messiah  and  were  proverbially  called  his 
sorrows. 

4.  And  when  he  had  gathered  all  the  chief  priests  and 
scribes  of  the  people  together,  he  demanded  of  them  where 
Christ  should  he  horn. 

That  Herod  understood  their  question  as  relating  to  the  birth  of 
the  Messiah,  now  appears  from  the  mode  in  which  he  answered  it,  not  by 
a  mere  declaration  of  his  own,  but  by  appealing  to  the  highest  author¬ 
ity  in  all  such  matters.  Chief  priests  the  plural  of  the  word  else¬ 
where  rendered  High  Priest  (see  below  26,  3.  51.  57.  58.  62.  63.  65), 
and  denoting  in  the  singular  the  hereditary  head  of  the  family  of 
Aaron  and  of  the  sacerdotal  tribe  of  Levi.  Although  this  ofiSce  could 
be  held  by  only  one  person  at  a  time  according  to  the  law  of  Closes, 
the  Romans  had  usurped  the  power  of  appointing  and  displacing  the 
High  Priest  at  pleasure,  so  that  there  were  often  several  who  had 
enjoyed  the  dignity.  These  some  suppose  to  be  the  chief  priests  men- 


MATTHEW  2,4.5. 


25 


tioned  in  the  Gospels.  Others  understand  the  term  to  designate  the 
heads  of  the  twenty-four  courses  into  which  the  priesthood  was  di¬ 
vided  by  David  (1  Chr.  24,  3-1 8),,  or  the  natural  heads  of  the  families 
descended  from  Aaron;  or  such  priests  as  were  members  of  the  Sanhe¬ 
drim,  either  by  elective  or  hereditary  right,  equal  perhaps  in  number 
to  the  Scribes  and  Elders,  who  had  seats  in  the  same  body,  i.  e. 
twenty  four  of  each  class,  making  seventy-two  in  all,  a  number  bor¬ 
rowed  from  the  seventy  elders  who  assisted  Moses  in  the  wilderness 
(Numb.  11, 16.  24),  and  of  whom  this  body  may  have  claimed  to  be 
successors,  though  it  probably  originated  in  the  exile.  The  scribes 
were  the  successors  of  Ezra,  as  conservators  of  the  Old  Testament 
canon,  and  as  this  ofiBce  required  a  critical  acquaintance  with  the 
text  of  scripture,  the  same  persons  would  of  course  be  its  professional 
expounders.  The  name  may  have  primarily  signified  their  office  as 
transcribers  of  the  law,  or  it  may  be  derived  directly  from  the  word 
meaning  Scriptures^  and  denote  a  scripturist,  or  one  employed  about 
the  sacred  volume.  Scribes  of  the  people  does  not  mean  private 
unofficial  scribes,  but,  on  the  contrary,  national  or  public  scribes,  those 
who  held  the  office,  not  for  private  advantage  but  for  the  general 
benefit  and  service.  All  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  cannot,  of  course, 
be  strictly  understood,  since  they  were  scattered  through  the  country, 
but  must  either  mean  all  who  were  accessible,  all  then  present  in 
Jerusalem,  or  all  who  were  members  of  the  Sanhedrim.  Most  in- 
terpieters  prefer  the  latter  supposition,  and  regard  this  as  a  formal 
meeting  of  the  Sanhedrim  itself.  The  third  class  which  composed  it 
is  not  mentioned ;  but  it  is  a  common  usage  to  describe  the  Sanhe¬ 
drim  by  naming  two  of  its  component  orders.*  Or  the  scribes  and 
priests  may  be  particularly  mentioned  as  the  proper  arbiters  of  such 
a  question.  Christy  the  Christ,  the  Messiah,  the  anointed  (see  above, 
on  1,  1).  Should  be  born^  or  more  exactly,  is  born  as  an  abstract 
proposition,  without  reference  to  time,  so  as  to  leave  it  undetermined 
whether  the  event  had  actually  taken  place  or  was  still  future. 
(For  a  similar  use  of  the  indefinite  present,  see  1  Cor.  15,  35.  John 
7,  42.) 

5.  And  they  said  unto  him,  In  Bethlehem  of  Judea : 
for  thus  it  is  written  by  the  prophet. 

This  is  the  reply  of  the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes  to  Herod’s 
question,  returned  no  doubt  by  the  whole  body  through  their  official 
representatives,  and  not  promiscuously  by  the  individual  members. 
The  answer  seems  to  have  been  given  without  any  hesitation,  as  a 
matter  perfectly  well  understood  and  settled  by  divine  authority. 
By  or  through  (as  in  1,  22)  the  prophet^  too  well  known  to  Herod 
and  the  other  Jewish  hearers  to  require  specification.  (See  Micah  5, 
1.  2,  where  the  passage  is  still  extant.)  For  assigns  the  reason  of  their 
prompt  decided  answer,  and  imparts  to  it  a  meaning  or  an  emphasis 

*  Compare  16,  21.  26,3.  59,  with  20,18.  27,  1. 

2 


26 


MATTHEW  2,5.6. 


equivalent  to  that  expressed  by  our  phrase  “of  course.”  Thus  may 
either  mean  as  follows^  or  more  probably,  as  just  said,  referring  to 
the  immediately  foregoing  designation  of  the  place  of  the  Messiahhs 
birth.  As  if  they  had  said  :  where  should  he  be  born  except  at 
Bethlehem,  the  place  expressly  fixed  by  God  himself  speaking 
througii  his  inspired  prophet.  It  is  icritteu,  more  exactly,  has  been 
written,  the  peifect  tense  suggesting  the  additional  idea  of  its  having 
been  not  only  uttered  long  ago,  but  ever  since  on  record  and  awaiting 
its  fulfilment. 

6.  And  thou  Bethlehem,  (in)  the  land  of  Juda,  art  not 
the  least  among  the  princes  of  Juda  :  for  out  of  thee  shall 
come  a  Governor,  that  shall  rule  my  people  Israel. 

The  retention  of  the  particle  at  the  beginning  shows  that  this  was 
meant  to  be  a  formal  quotation,  not  a  mere  allusion  or  a  paraphrase. 
JViou,  or  as  for  thee,  in  reference  to  what  immediately  precedes,  not 
here,  but  in  the  original  connection  (Mic.  5, 1).  Instead  of  Ephrath  (or 
Ephrata).  an  old  name  of  Bethlehem  (Gen.  48,  7),  which  distinguished  it 
from  Bethlehem  in  Zebulon  (.Josh.  19, 15j,  the  evangelist  or  the  scribes 
themselves  distinguished  it  still  more  expressly  by  the  phrase  land 
{of)  Judah.  Some  suppose  land  to  be  here  used  for  town  or  city,  as 
it  sometimes  is  in  the  Septuagint  version.  Other.s  take  it  in  a  wider 
although  still  restricted  sense,  as  including  both  the  town  and  the  sur¬ 
rounding  district.  (See  below,  on  v.  16.)  But  the  simplest  explana¬ 
tion  is  that  whicli  makes  it  an  elliptical  expression  meaning  {in)  the 
land  of  Judah,  iis,  WQ  add  the  name  of  the  state  to  that  of  the 
town  (e.  g.  Princeton,  New  Jersey).  Not  the  least,  or  more  emphat¬ 
ically,  not  at  all  (or  not  by  any  means)  the  least.  This  peculiar  form 
of  speech  suggests  a  sort  of  contrast  or  antithesis,  as  if  it  had  been 
said,  ‘  thou  art  not  the  least  after  all,’  or,  ‘  as  thou  wast  of  old  described,’ 
implying  that  both  accounts  were  just,  and  that  while  it  was  the  least 
in  one  sense,  it  was  not  the  least,  or  (by  a  natural  litotes  or  meiosis) 
was  the  greatest  in  another.  This  furnishes  a  key  to  the  apparent 
disagreement  between  Micah  and  Matthew,  and  removes  the  necessity 
of  charging  the  supposed  inaccuracy  on  the  Sanhedrim,  whose  words 
the  evangelist  reports  without  correction.  Besides  the  extreme  im¬ 
probability  of  such  an  eri-or  or  perversion,  on  the  part  of  such  a  body, 
on  so  public  and  important  an  occasion,  its  retention  Avould  be  utterly 
at  variance  with  the  plan  of  this  evangelist,  whose  gospel  is  constructed 
on  the  very  principle  of  choosing  such  events  as  proved  or  exemplified 
the  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  a  design  which  could  not  have  been  pro¬ 
moted  by  the  record  of  a  false  citation.  The  variation  was  no  doubt 
inrcntional  and  meant  to  be  a  sort  of  gloss  or  comment  on  the  obscure 
language  of  the  prophet  little  to  be  among  (i.  e.  too  little  to  be  named 
or  reckoned  among)  the  thousands  of  Judah,  i.  e.  the  divisions  of  the 
tribe  (as  in  Judges  6, 15.  1  Sam.  10,  19).  It  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  sin¬ 
gular  coincidence,  that  Bethlehem  is  not  named  among  the  cities  of 
Judah  in  the  Hebrew  text  of  .Josh.  15,  59,  although  inserted  with  ten 


27 


MATTHEW  2,6. 

others  by  the  Greek  translators,  who  to  make  the  text  and  context 
uniform,  subjoin  the  summary  “eleven  cities  with  their  villages.”  This 
is  now  regarded,  by  the  highest  .critical  authorities,  as  one  of  many 
instances  in  which  these  old  translators  sought  to  rectify  the  errors 
and  supply  the  omissions  of  the  Hebrew  text,  as  they  considered  them. 
To  say  nothing  of  the  other  ten,  the  absence  of  Bethlehem  from  the 
official  list  is  in  striking  agreement  with  its  external  insignificance  as 
testified  by  all  tradition,  and  explicitly  asserted  by  the  prophet  in  the 
passage  quoted.  The  greatness  here  set  off  against  it  is  entirely  moral, 
and  arises  from  the  fact  that  Messiah  was  to  be  a  native  of  this  other¬ 
wise  obscure  and  unimportant  place.  It  is  not  to  be  overlooked,  how¬ 
ever,  that  this  contrast  had  already  been  partially  presented  in  the 
type,  though  it  could  only  be  completed  in  the  antitype.  David,  the 
first  and  greatest  of  the  theocratic  sovereigns,  and  the  most  honoured 
representative  of  the  Messiah  as  a  king  before  he  actually  came,  was 
born  and  spent  his  early  life  at  Bethlehem.  That  the  two  things  were 
connected,  not  only  in  the  divine  purpose,  but  in  the  popular  belief 
and  expectation,  may  be  gatliered  from  John  7,  42,  compared  with 
Luke  2,  4.  11,  and  with  the  original  history  in  the  sixteenth  chapter 
of  First  Samuel.  Princes,  leaders,  governors  (10,18.  27,2.  11.  14. 
15.  23.  27.  28,  14),  are  put  for  the  original  term  thousands  (Sept. 
y6Xtaoriv),  by  a  sort  of  personification  in  which  the  heads  of  families 
represent  the  families  themselves  and  the  places  of  their  residence. 
There  is  no  need  therefore  of  explaining  the  Greek  word  (rjyeaoaii^)  as 
an  adjective  agreeing  with  a  noun  understood  and  meaning  chiej 
{towns  or  citiei),  which  is  moreover  not  sustained  b}"  usage.  Still  less 
admissible  is  a  change  in  the  Hebrew  text,  or  rather  in  its  pointing,  so 
as  to  read  chiefs  (“'d!s5<)  instead  of  thousands  This  is  not  only 

needless  and  gratuitous,  but  inconsistent  with  the  usage  of  the  former 
word  which  does  not  mean  a  chief  in  general,  but  a  duke  of  Edom, 

the  distinctive  term  happily  employed  in  the  English  version  of  Gen.  36. 
15-43.  1  Chr.  1,  51-54,  the  only  place  where  the  word  occurs,  except  a 
few  times  in  the  later  prophets  (Jer.  13,  21.  Zech.  9,  7.  12,  5.  6.).  when 
the  primitive  usage  may  have  been  corrupted,  or  perhaps  alluded  to  by 
■way  of  contrast  (e.  g.  in  Zech.  9,  7,  ‘  like  an  Edomitish  chief  in  Judah’). 
Por  introduces  or  assigns  the  reason  why  the  same  place  could  be 
least  and  not  least  among  the  thousands  of  Judah.  Out.  of  thee  shad 
come  may  have  the  strict  sense  of  local  derivation  and  progression,  or 
the  figurative  one  of  birth  and  genealogical  extraction,  which  is  a  com¬ 
mon  one  in  Hebrew.  (See  Gen.  17,  6.  46,  26.  Isai.  39,  7,  and  compare 
Heb.  7,  5.)  That  the  relation  thus  described  is  not  immediate  but  re¬ 
mote,  i.  e.  not  birth  at  Bethlehem  but  mere  descent  from  ancestoi-s 
who  lived  there,  is  a  figment  invented  by  the  later  Jews  to  justify 
their  application  of  the  passage  to  Zcrubbabel,  who  was  no  doubt  born 
in  Babylonia.  (See  Ezra  2.  1.  2.)  The  obvious  meaning  of  the  word  is 
that  Uethlehem  itself,  considered  as  a  place,  was  to  be  magnified  by 
giving  birth  to  an  illustrious  personage,  who  is  then  described  in  the 
remainder  of  the  sentence.  A  governor,  chief,  leader,  not  the  word 
translated  'princes  in  the  first  clause,  but  of  kindred  origin,  the  essen- 


28 


MATTHEW  2,6.7. 


tial  idea  being  in  both  cases  that  of  leading,  taking  the  lead,  acting  as 
a  leader.  As  the  other  is  a  noun  {r^yeuoiv)  answering  to  leader,  so  this 
is  properly  a  participle  (riyoviJieuos)  and  denotes  a  leading  {man  or  per¬ 
son),  although  variously  rendered  elsewhere.*  One  of  the  oldest  ver¬ 
sions  (the  Peshito)  uses  Icing  for  both  words.  The  general  descrip¬ 
tion  is  then  specified  by  indicating  where  and  among  whom  he  was  to 
be  a  leader.  Rule  is  in  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible  feed,  neither  of 
whicli  conveys  the  full  force  of  the  Greek  verb  {noLixaveT),  derived  from 
a  noun  {notixrjv)  meaiimg  shepherd,  and  itself  denoting  the  whole  office 
of  a  shepherd,  which  includes  not  only  feeding  but  protection  and  con¬ 
trol.  Both  in  the  literal  and  figurative  usage  of  the  term,  the  first  of 
these  ideas  sometimes  predominates  (as  in  John  21, 16.  Jude  12.  Rev. 
7, 17),  sometimes  the  other  (as  in  Rev.  2,  27.  12,5.  19, 15),  sometimes 
both  are  meant  to  be  included  (as  in  Luke  17,  17.  Acts  20,28.  1  Cor. 
9,  7.  1  Pet.  5.  2).  The  figurative  representation  of  civil  rulers,  and  es¬ 
pecially  of  kings,  as  shepherds,  is  natural  and  common  in  the  classics, 
as  appears  from  the  favourite  Homeric  phrase,  shepherds  of  the  people,” 
from  Xenophon’s  explicit  affirmation  of  the  likeness,  and  from  the  saying 
of  Tiberius  preserved  by  Suetonius,  and  worthy  of  a  better  origin,  that 
the  part  of  a  good  shepherd  is  to  feed  his  fiock,  not  to  devour  it.  The 
same  application  of  the  term  occurs  in  Scripture,  even  where  the  Eng¬ 
lish  reader  may  suppose  a  reference  to  spiritual  functions  only,  as  the 
pastors  and  shepherds,  so  often  spoken  of  by  Jeremiah  and  other 
prophets,!  are  not  religious  ministers,  at  least  not  exclusively,  but  also 
civil  rulers.  This  last  clause,  who  shall  rule  {or  feed)  my  people  Israel, 
is  not  formally  contained  in  the  original,  though  really  involved  in  the 
first  words  of  INlicah  5,  4  {he  shall  stand  and  feed  in  the  strength  of  the 
Lord,  in  the  majesty  of  the  name  of  the  Lord  his  God).  These  words 
imply  that  the  ruler,  who  was  to  come  forth  from  Bethlehem,  was 
not  to  be  a  secular  chief  merely,  but  to  wield  a  sacred  and  divine  au- 
thorit}^,  which,  with  the  words  in  Israel  (Mic.  5,  2),  correspond  in  sub¬ 
stance  to  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  before  us,  notwithstanding  the 
omission  of  the  words  to  (or  for)  me,  i.  e.  for  my  service  and  by  my 
authority,  which  are  sufficiently  implied  in  the  expression  who  shall 
rule  my  people  Israel,  i.  e.  the  old  theocracy  or  Jewish  Church.  As 
the  question  put  by  Herod  to  the  Sanhedrim  had  reference  only  to  the 
place  of  the  Messiah’s  birth,  they  quote  only  what  relates  to  this  point 
and  the  identification  of  his  person,  omitting  what  is  said  of  his  eter¬ 
nal  generation  (in  the  last  clause  of  Micah  5,  2)  and  the  allusion  to  his 
mother  (in  the  next  verse),  although  both  these  are  most  interesting 
and  important  features  of  the  passage  as  a  JMessianic  prophecy,  and 
both  would  naturally  be  suggested  to  a  Jewish  hearer  by  the  formal 
quotation  even  of  a  part. 

7.  Then  Herod,  when  he  had  privily  called  the  wise 

*  E.  g.  chief  (Luke  22,  26.  Acts  14, 12.  15,  22),  governor  {A.ci&  7, 10),  them  that 
lave  the  rule  (ileb.  lii,  7. 17.  24.) 

t  Jer.  2,8.  8,15.  10,21.  12,10.  22,  22.  23,  1.4.  25,  34.  50,  6.  Mic.  5,5.  Nah. 
8,18.  Ezek.  34, 2.  8. 10.  Zech.  10,3.  11,3.5.8. 


29 


MATTHEW  2,7. 

men,  inquired  of  them  diligently  what  time  the  star  ap¬ 
peared. 

The  prompt  and  anthoritative-  answer  of  the  Sanhedrim  to  Herod’s 
question  (in  v.  4)  would  naturally  lead  him  to  inquire  whether  this 
prediction  had  been  really  fulfilled,  or  whether  there  ’was  any  recent 
birth  at  Bethlehem,  on  the  ground  of  which  the  fact  of  such  fulfilment 
could  be  plausibly  asserted.  In  order  to  determine  this  important 
point,  he  seeks  to  know  on  what  grounds  these  astronomers  believed 
the  event,  so  long  expected  both  by  Jews  and  Gentiles  (see  above,  on 
V.  2),  to  have  taken  place.  The}^  had  already  given  as  a  reason  for 
their  coming  the  appearance  of  a  star,  which  they  connected,  in  their 
science  or  their  superstition,  with  the  birth  of  a  great  personage  among 
the  Jews,  to  whom  though  Gentiles,  they  had  come  to  render  civil 
homage,  if  not  religious  worship.  Then^  i.  e.  after  the  response  re¬ 
coiled  in  V.  6,  and  no  doubt  immediately,  the  Greek  word  (T-()Tf),  which 
is  one  of  Matthew’s  favorite  expressions,  sometimes  denotir.g  even  sim¬ 
ultaneous  actions  or  occurrences  (see  below,  on  v.  16).  Privily^  pri¬ 
vately,  or  rather  secretly,  a  word  sometimes  applied  to  any  thing  in¬ 
sensible  or  imperceptible,  but  commonly  denoting,  in  the  best  Greek 
usage,  fraudulent  or  treacherous  concealment.  Calling  or  having 
called^  does  not  necessarily  denote  a  peremptory  summons,  but  in  this 
connection  rather  a  courteous  invitation  to  a  private  conference,  the  se¬ 
crecy  relating  to  all  but  the  Magians  themselves,  who  might  consider 
themselves  honoured  by  this  private  audience.  The  motive  for  con¬ 
cealment  may  have  been  a  wdsh  to  avoid  further  popular  excitement 
before  he  had  discovered  all  the  facts;  or  it  may  no  less  naturally  be 
referred  to  that  instinctive  fondness  for  concealment,  ’v\'hich  belongs  to 
men  of  jealous  and  suspicious  temper,  or  of  treacherous  intentions, 
even  where  there  is  no  rational  occasion  or  necessity  for  secret  meas¬ 
ures.  We  have  then  a  striking  instance  of  verisimilitude,  which  could 
not  have  occurred  to  a  fictitious  writer,  for  the  very  reason  that  the 
act  was  the  result,  not  of  reasoning  or  calculation,  but  of  a  spontaneous 
impulse.  Inquired  diligently^  not  the  phrase  so  rendered  in  v.  16,  but 
a  single  Greek  word  (^Kpi/Scoo-e),  meaning  to  render  accurate,  or  do  ex¬ 
actly,  and  applied  in  usage  to  arrangement,  information,  inquiry,  and 
many  other  acts  of  which  exactness,  accuracy,  or  precision  may  be 
predicated.  The  idea  of  diligence,  or  industry,  derived  by  all  the  Eng¬ 
lish  versions  from  the  Vulgate  {diligenter  didicit).  is  entirely  foi’eign 
from  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  and  its  cognate  forms  both  here 
and  elsewhere.*  Of  them,  from  them,  as  the  only  source  of  informa¬ 
tion  upon  this  point.  The  literal  translation  of  the  last  clause  i.s,  the 
time  of  the  appearing  star.  As  the  wmrd  translated  time  is  one  ap¬ 
plied  to  periods  rather  than  to  fixed  points  (compare  Acts  1,  7),  the 
question  may  have  been  not  when  the  star  was  seen  first,  but  how  long 
it  had  been  seen  since,  which  implies  that  it  had  remained  visible  (but 


*  See  below,  on  v.  IG,  and  compare  Luke  1,  3.  Acts  18,  25.  26.  22,  3.  23,  15. 
20.  24,  22.  26,  5.  Eph.  5, 15.  1  Thess.  5,  2. 


30 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  2,  7.  8. 

see  be]o\v',  on  v.  9).  Appeared^  or  retaining  the  original  form,  appear¬ 
ing^  is  a  Greek  participle  now  adopted  as  an  English  noun,  pAienome- 
non^  a[)pearance,  or  rather  something  that  appears.  The  idea  of  rarity 
01-  strangeness  forms  no  ])art  of  the  essential  meaning,  Herod’s  mo¬ 
tive  for  making  this  inquiry  was  not  to  consult  his  own  astrologers,  as 
some  suppose,  in  reference  to  the  birth  of  which  he  had  just  heard, 
but  rather  to  arrange  the  murderous  design  by  which  he  hoped  to 
render  it  innocuous. 

8.  And  he  sent  them  to  Bethleliem,  and  said,  Go, 
and  search  diligently  for  the  young  child  ;  and  when  ye 
have  found  (him),  bring  me  word  again,  that  I  may  come 
and  worship  him  also. 

The  construction  is  the  participial  one  so  common  in  this  context, 
and  so  constantly  resolved  by  our  translators  into  the  past  tense,  send¬ 
ing  them  to  Bethlehem,  he  said.'*  So  too  in  the  next  clause,  gomg,  or 
having  gone.,  or  gourneyed.,  as  the  Greek  verb  commonly  denotes  not 
mere  motion  but  departure  to  a  distance.  The  participle  is  not  pleo¬ 
nastic,  nor  conditional  {if  ye  should  <70),  but  a  substantive  part  of  the 
corninand  or  exhoidation,  pointing  out  a  necessary  means  to  the  pro¬ 
posed  end  of  exact  investigation.  This  is  of  no  importance  here,  but 
may  throw  light  upon  another  instance  of  the  same  construction  (see 
below,  on  28,  19).  Diligently.,  thoroughly,  exactly,  an  adverb  corre¬ 
sponding  to  the  verb  in  the  preceding  verse.  Search.,  a  verb  which 
originally  means  to  'verify  or  ascertain  as  true  (eVd^co  from  eVeds),  here 
used  in  a  compounded  form  (f’^frdo-are)  suggesting  the  additional  idea 
of  searching  out,  extracting  or  eliciting  the  truth  in  difficult  and  doubt¬ 
ful  cases.  The  same  vei'b  is  applied  to  persons  in  the  sense  of  close  or 
strict  examination  (see  below,  on  10,  11,  and  compare  John  21,  12), 
and  is  used  in  the  Septuagint  version  of  Deut.  19,  18  with  the  same 
adverb  as  in  this  case  (d/ept/daj?).  Search  for.,  though  essentially  cor¬ 
rect,  is  not  the  precise  sense  of  the  Greek  phrase,  \vhich  means  rather 
to  examine  (or  inquire  of)  others  Avith  respect  to  the  child  {irepl  rov 
TTaiblov),  i.  e.  not  only  to  discover  his  person,  or  find  where  he  was,  but 
also  to  learn  all  about  him.  Young  child  is  in  Greek  a  single  word 
(73-atSior),  explained  by  some  to  mean  a  suckling,  as  distinguished  from 
a  new-born  babe  (3pe0oO)  a  boy  or  lad  {ixaif  ;  but  that  such  terms 
are  to  some  extent  convertible,  is  clear  from  Luke  18,  15-17,  where 
two  of  them  are  actually  interchanged.  When  is  not  as  in  the  pre¬ 
ceding  clauses,  introduced  by  the  translators,  but  a  literal  translation 
•of  the  Greek  (eVai/  5e),  which  sometimes  indicates  a  slight  antithesis 
(see  Luke  11,  22.  34),  but  here  suggests  only  a  contingency,  like  our 
ichenever.,  i.  e.  whether  sooner  or  later.  Found,  as  the  result  of  the 
search  just  commanded,  and  perhaps  implying  doubt  as  to  the  issue. 

*  See  above,  1,18.  20.  2, 1.  3.  7,  in  all  which  places  when,  or  while,  represents 
a  participle  in  the  original. 


! 


MATTHEW  2,8.9. 


31 


Bring  {me)  word  again^  in  Greek  a  single  but  compounded  verb,  mean¬ 
ing  sometimes  simply  to  announce  (as  in  8,  33.  12,  18.  14.  12.  28,  8. 
10.  llj.  but  sometimes  more  speeilically,  to  report  or  carry  back  news 
(as  in  11,  4.  Luke  14,  21.  Acts  5,  22.  12,  20).  which  addiiional  idea 
nlay  however  be  suggested  by  the  context,  as  in  tiiis  case,  where  the 
word  ayai/i  Is  not  ill  the  original,  but  Herod  must  of  course  be  un¬ 
derstood  as  bidding  them  to  come  back  or  return,  in  order  to  commu¬ 
nicate  the  fruit  of  their  inquiries.  I  and  aUo^  separated  in  the  ver¬ 
sion,  stand  together  in  the  Greek,  or  rather  form  a  single  word  (Kuyu;) 
and  might  be  translated  I too^  i.  e.  as  well  as  you  and  others.  Whether 
worship)  be  here  taken  in  its  civil  or  religious  sense  (see  above,  on  v. 
2).  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  Herod  really  intended  either  to  adore 
the  child  or  do  him  homage,  but  his  words  must  be  either  h3  pocriti- 
cal,  intended  to  conceal  his  murderous  intentions,  or  ironical,  express¬ 
ive  of  his  scorn  and  spite  towards  his  infant  rival.  Here  again,  we 
are  not  to  assume  too  much  of  a  rational  and  settled  purpose,  but 
must  make  allowance  for  unreasoning  suggestions  of  strong  passion  or 
inveterate  affection.  (See  above,  on  v.  7.)  Come  and  worship  is 
another  resolution  of  the  Greek  participial  construction,  which  appears 
to  have  been  foreign  from  the  English  idiom  in  the  days  of  King 
James,  or  at  least  of  Tyndale,  from  whom  all  these  unnecessary 
changes  have  been  borrowed.  Even  the  most  fastidious  ear  and  taste 
would  probabl}^  take  no  offence  now  at  the  literal  translation,  so  that 
I  too  coming  may  adore  him. 

9.  When  they  had  heard  the  king,  they  departed  ; 
and  lo,  the  star,  which  they  saw  in  the  east,  went  before 
them,  tiil  it  came  and  stood  over  where  the  young  child 
was. 

But  they^  on  their  part  (ol  Se),  haring  heard^  the  Icing,  waiting  of 
course  till  he  had  ended  his  instructions,  as  recorded  in  the  verse  pre¬ 
ceding.  Departed,  set  out  on  their  journey,  or  resumed  it.  from  Jeru¬ 
salem  to  Bethlehem.  Lo,  behold,  imroduces  something  new  and  unex¬ 
pected,  like  our  own  phrase,  ‘'strange  to  say,”  &c.  The  star,  lumina¬ 
ry,  heavenly  phenomenon,  whatever  it  may  have  been  (see  above,  on 
V.  2).  Saw  may  be  either  the  impei-fect  tense  implying  a  repeated  or 
continued  vi.Jon,  or  the  aorist,  denoting  that  they  saw  it  at  a  certain 
time,  or  on  one  particular  occasion.  Went  before  them,  a  Greek  verb 
which  originally  means  to  lead  forth  or  bring  forward  (as  in  Acts  12, 
6.  10,  30.  25,  20),  but  in  common  usage,  to  lead  the  waA%  precede,  or 
go  before,  whether  the  object  be  implied  (as  in  21,  9.  Mark  0,  45.  1 
Tim.  5,  24.  Ileb.  7,  18),  or  expressed  (as  in  14,  22.  21,  31.  Mark  10, 
32,  and  here).  It  does  not  ncces.sarily  denote  in  this  place,  that  a  lu¬ 
minous  appearanee  moved  in  front  of  them  until  they  reached  the 
house.  It  may  mean  merely  that  the  star  was  visible  before  them  as 
they  weiit  towards  Bethlehem.  So  too  the  statement,  that  it  stood 
over  where,  or  above  {the  place  in)  which,  the  child  was,  is  a  natural 


32 


MATTHEW  2,  9.  10.  11. 


expression  of  the  fact  that  as  they  journeyed  towards  it,  the  star  was 
visible  in  that  part  of  the  heavens.  This  explanation  is  entirely  con¬ 
sistent  with  the  use  of  the  word  came  (or  coming)^  wliich  at  most  can 
only  denote  change  of  place  or  i-elative  position,  since  they  last  ob¬ 
served  it.  It  is  not  said,  nor  intended,  that  the  star  pointed  out  the 
house,  which  is  not  even  mentioned,  and  which  was  no  doubt  ascer¬ 
tained,  as  in  all  such  cases,  by  inquiry.  Josephus  in  like  manner 
speaks  of  a  star  as  standing  over  the  city  of  Jerusalem  before  its 
downfall.  The  miraculous,  in  either  case,  is  represented  as  belonging 
to  the  star  itself,  and  not  to  its  position  over  the  place  indicated.  The 
oldest  manuscripts  and  latest  editors  have  a  passive  form  (eard^r]) 
which  strictly  means,  was  jplaced  (or  stationed)^  but  is  equivalent  in 
usage  to  the  common  reading  (ear?;)  stood. 


10.  When  they  saw  the  star,  they  rejoiced  with  ex¬ 
ceeding  great  joy. 

And  (or  hut^  omitted  in  the  version)  seeing  (or  Tianing  seen^  re¬ 
solved,  as  usual,  into  when  they  saic)  the  star,  im[)lying,  it  should  .seem, 
that  they  had  not  beheld  it  during  their  long  journey.  Or  the  refer¬ 
ence  may  be  to  its  new  position  as  de>ci'ibed  in  the  preceding  verse. 
Seeing  the  star  (in  this  apparent  station),  they  rejoiced  a  great  joy — 
very  (or  exceedingly).  This  collocation  of  the  words  gives  great  force 
to  the  intensive  adverb  which  stands  last  in  Greek.  1  he  coiiibina- 
tion  of  the  cognate  verb  and  noun  {rejoiced  a  joy)  is  not  a  peculiar 
Hebrew  idiom,  as  sometimes  represented,  but  is  found  occasionally  in 
the  classical  and  modern  writers.  It  is  slightly  different  in  form  from 
the  construction  with  the  dative  (see  John  3,  29.  1  Thess.  3,  9), 
though  translated  in  the  same  way.  (Compare  1  Kings  1,  40,  and  the 
marginal  translation  of  Jonah  4,  6.)  The  common  version  coincides 
with  the  Rhemish.  Wiclif  hiis,,full  great  joy  ;  Tyndale,  marvellously 
glad  ;  Cranmer,  exceeding  glad  ;  and  the  Geneva  Bible,  exceeding  great 
gladness.  This  extreme  joy  was  most  natural,  not  only  in  relation  to 
the  object  of  their  search,  but  to  the  truth  of  their  calculations  and 
conclusions,  in  which  they  would  naturally  feel  an  intellectual  and 
scientific  pride. 

11.  And  when  they  were  come  into  the  house,  they  saw 
the  young  child  with  Mary  his  mother,  and  fell  down, 
and  worshipped  him  :  and  when  they  had  opened  their 
treasures,  they  presented  unto  him  gifts  ;  gold,  and  frank¬ 
incense,  and  myrrh. 

Coming  {or  having  come)  into  the  house,  where  the  holy  family 
was  then  residing.  This  does  not  necessarily  imply  their  permanent 
abode  at  Bethlehem,  as  the  house  might  be  merely  one  in  which  they 
had  temporary  lodgings  (see  below,  on  y.  23).  Saw,  or  according  to 


MATTHEW  2,11. 


33 


some  ancient  copies,  founds  with  apparent  reference  to  the  words  of 
Herod  in  v.  8.  The  (young)  child  with  Mary  his  mother^  not  the 
Madonna  and  her  child,  as  in  the  Romish  Mai-iolaty,  and  the  artis- 
tical  tradition  founded  on  it.  The  same  incidental  mention  and  sub¬ 
ordinate  position  of  the  Virgin  may  be  noted  in  vs.  13.  14.  20.  21. 
Falling  (down)  worshipped  him^  the  same  verb  that  is  used  to  express 
civil  homage  in  the  Septuagint  version  of  Gen.  42.  6.  43,  25,  and  both 
combined  in  that  of  2  Sam.  1,  2,  unless  we  assume  that  all  such  homage 
in  the  ancient  east  included  a  religious  or  idolatrous  devotion,  like 
that  paid  to  the  emperors  of  Rome  and  China.  At  all  events,  the 
homage  here  described  implied  that  they  who  paid  it  recognized  the 
child  as  something  more  than  “king  of  the  Jews.”  Opening  (or 
haring)  opened  their  treasures^  which  may  either  mean  their  costly 
wares  or  their  vessels  which  contained  them,  as  the  Greek  word,  from 
which  ours  is  derived,  is  applied  not  only  to  the  contents  (as  in  6, 
19-21.  13,  44.  19,  21.  2  Cor.  4,  7),  but  also  to  the  receptacle,  whether 
fixed  or  portable.  (See  12,25.  13,52,  and  compare  the  wooden 
treasure  (^r^aavpov  ^vXivov)  of  Josephus.  It  is  an  old  but  fanciful 
opinion,  that  these  three  gifts  were  presented  to  the  infant  Jesus  in  as 
many  different  characters,  gold  as  a  king,  incense  as  a  God,  and 
myrrh  as  a  sufferer.  Another  notion  of  the  same  kind,  is  that  the 
three  gifts  were  presented  by  as  many  magi,  who  were  therefore  three 
in  number,  representing  three  countries  of  which  these  were  the  pro¬ 
ducts,  while  a  fui  ther  combination  with  the  prophesy  in  Ps.  72,  10. 
Isai.  CO,  6,  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  three  were  kings  of  their  re¬ 
spective  countries.  Hence  arose  the  legend  of  the  Three  Kings,  one 
of  the  most  fixed  and  familiar  in  the  popular  traditions  of  the  old 
world,  though  w'ithout  foundation  in  the  narrative  before  us,  which  is 
silent  both  as  to  the  rank  and  number  of  the  magi,  and  describes 
the  gifts  as  a  collective  or  promiscuous  offering  from  all  together. 
The  gifts  themselves  were  valuable  products  of  the  east,  but  not  con¬ 
fined  to  single  countries,  and  are  here  combined,  like  those  in  Gen. 
43,  11,  as  a  suitable  present  to  a  recognised  superior,  before  whom, 
according  to  an  ancient  oriental  usage,  mentioned  by  Seneca  and  other 
classics,  the  inferior  must  not  appear  empty-handed.  (Compare  1 
Sam.  9,  7.  8.)  Incense,  in  its  widest  sense,  is  any  sacrificial  burning, 
but  is  specially  applied  to  aromatic  fumigation,  as  an  act  of  worship. 
The  Greek  word  here  denotes  one  of  the  substances  so  used,  an  odorif¬ 
erous  transparent  gum  distilling  from  a  tree  in  Arabia.  In  the 
classics  this  word  (Xlf^ams)  means  the  tree  and  a  derivative  form 
(Xi^uuwTus)  the  gum;  but  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  the 
latter  means  a  censer  (Rev.  8,  3),  and  the  former  is  applied  to  the 
gum  itself  (Rev.  18,  13).  Myrrh  in  Greek  Smyrna,  which  appears 
elsewhere  as  the  name  of  a  city  in  Asia  Minor  (Rev.  1,  11.  2,  8).  As 
an  appellative  it  also  signifies  an  aromatic  gum,  exuding  from  a  thorn- 
bush  in  Arabia,  extremely  bitter,  and  employed  by  the  ancients 
both  as  a  spice  and  a  perfume.  (See  Mark  15,  23.  John  19,  39,  and 
compare  the  Septuagint  version  of  Ps.  45,  9.  Song  Sol.  3,  G.  5,  5.) 


34 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  2,  12.  13. 

12.  And  being  warned  of  God  in  a  dream  that  they 
should  not  return  to  Herod,  they  departed  into  their  own 
country  another  way. 

Here  the  Greek  participial  construction  is  retained.  Showing 
that  it  was  avoided  in  the  previous  context  only  as  a  matter  of  taste, 
and  not  because  it  would  have  been  a  violation  of  the  English  idiom 
(see  above,  on  v.  8).  Being  warned  of  God,  in  Greek  a  single  word, 
originally  meaning  to  deal  or  transact  business,  more  particularly  that 
of  a  pecuniary  nature  from  ;  then  to  negotiate,  or 

confer  on  state  affairs ;  and  then,  to  give  an  answer  after  such  nego¬ 
tiation,  in  which  sense  it  is  used  by  Demosthenes  and  Xenophon. 
By  a  further  elevation  and  extension  of  the  meaning,  it  is  applied  to 
the  responses  of  the  oracles,  and  in  the  Scriptures  to  Divine  com- 
mnnications,  especially  tliose  made  to  individuals.  The  sense  of  warn¬ 
ing'  is  required  by  the  context  here  as  it  is  in  Heb.  8,5.  11,  7.  12,  25, 
but  pi'obably  without  the  implication  of  a  previous  pra^'er  or  consulta¬ 
tion  as  in  Acts  IQ,  25,  and  m  the  Vulgate  here  (resjyonso  aecepto). 
For  a  still  further  deviation  from  the  primary  sense,  see  Acts  11,26 
and  Horn.  7,  3.  By  dream  {<nT  ouay),  as  in  1,  20.*  ]S^ot  to  turn  l)ack^ 
or  retrace  their  steps,  an  absolute  or  reflexive  use  of  the  verb  also 
found  in  Plato,  an  I  in  Heb.  11, 15.  Acts  18,21,  where  it  is  construed 
with  the  same  proposition.  They  departed,  not  the  verb  so  rendered 
in  V.  9  (and  go  in  v.  8),  but  one  suggesting  the  additional  idea  of 
withdrawal  or  retreat,  being  the  verbal  root  or  tlieme  of  anchorite. 
Besides  the  verse  given  here  (and  in  4, 12.  14,  13.  15,21.  27,5.  John 
6.  15j,  it  is  variously  rendered,  give  place  (i.  e.  make  room,  9,  24), 
turned  aside  (v.  22  below),  icithdrew  himself  {12, 15),  went  aside  (Acts 
23,  19.  2o,  31).  It  here  implies  not  the  mere  act  of  departure  or  re¬ 
moval,  but  escape  from  danger  as  the  motive.  By  (or  through,  omit¬ 
ted  in  the  version)  another  way,  different  from  that  by  which  they 
came  ;  perhaps  a  more  direct  one  since  they  visited  Jerusalem,  not  be¬ 
cause  it  lay  in  the  way,  but  because  it  was  the  capital,  at  which  they 
would  of  course  expect  to  find  the  new-born  king,  or  at  least  to  obtain 
news  of  hi.m.  Into  Pieir  own  place  (;(a)/my,  a  kindred  form  to  the  preced¬ 
ing  verb),  land,  teri-itory,  region,  country,  4,16.  8,28.  Luke  21,21. 
John  4,  35),  not  that  subject  or  belonging  to  them,  as  its  sovereigns 
(see  above,  on  v.  11),  but  simply  that  of  their  nativity  or  residence. 
Whether  this  was  Persia,  Babylonia,  or  Arabia  is  not  revealed  and 
cannot  be  determined  by  conjecture.  (See  above,  on  v.  1.) 

13.  And  when  they  were  departed,  behold,  the  angel 
of  the  Lord  appeareth  to  Joseph  in  a  dream,  saying, 
Arise,  and  take  the  young  child  and  his  mother,  and  flee 

*  According  to  Wiclif,  the  whole  phrase  means  to  take  an  answer  in 
deep. 


MATTHEW  2,13. 


35 


into  Egypt,  and  be  thou  there  until  I  bring  thee  word  : 
for  Herod  will  seek  the  young  child  to  destroy  him. 

A^nother  participial  construction,  but  resolved  as  usual  into  the  past 
tense  with  when.  They  having  retreated  (or  withdrawn)^  the  same  verb 
that  was  used  in  the  precedins^  verse  and  there  explained.  The  next 
clause  is  repeated  from  1,  20,  but  with  the  substitution  of  the  narra¬ 
tive  or  ojraphic  present  {appeareth)  for  the  past  tense  {appeared).  This 
mode  of  revelation  or  divine  communication  seems  to  be  the  lowest 
mentioned  in  the  sacred  history,  being  confined  in  that  before  us  to 
the  Magi.  Joseph,  and  the  wife  of  Pilate  (see  below,  on  27, 19,  and 
compare  20, 13.  31,  24).  In  the  Old  Testament,  it  seems  at  times  to 
characterize  the  revelations  of  false  prophets  as  distinguished  fi  otn  the 
true  (as  in  Deut.  13, 1.  Jer.  23,  25.  27,  9.  29.  8.  Zech.ho,  2),  once  those 
of  lower  prophets  as  compared  with  Moses  (Numb.  12,  6).  We  find  it 
also  in  the  case  of  Solomon  (1  Kings  3,5)  and  Daniel  (7, 1),  who,  al¬ 
though  inspired  men,  were  not  official  prophets.  'I’he  verb  translated 
ariee  originally  means  to  raise  or  lift  up  (as  in  12, 11),  then  to  rouse 
from  sleep  (as  in  8,  25),  and  by  a  natural  figure  from  the  sleep  of 
death  (10,  8.  11,  5).  The  strict  sense  of  the  passive  form  here  used  is, 
'being  roused.^  awakened,  i.  e.  not  when  you  awake  as  usual  in  the 
morning,  but  at  once,  immediately,  without  dcla3^  Ta'ke  (to  thyself, 
or  with  thee,  in  thy  company),  the  verb  translated  take  unto  thee  in 
1,  20,  and  too'k  unto  him  in  1,  24.  The  {young)  child  and  his  mother., 
nearly  though  not  precisely  the  same  phrase  with  that  in  v.  11.  Flee, 
a  stronger  term  than  that  in  the  first  clause  of  the  preceding  verse,  and 
one  expressing  still  more  fully  the  nece.ssity  of  haste  and  the  existence 
of  danger.  Egypt,  the  nearest  point  of  which  was  probably  not  more 
than  sixty  miles  from  Bethlehem.  That  country,  although  subject  to 
the  Romans,  was  beyond  the  reach  of  Herod,  and  was  extensively 
inhabited  by  Jews,  whose  fathers  had  been  settled  there  by  one  of  the 
first  Ptolemies  or  Greek  kings  of  Egypt.  It  was  here  that  the  re¬ 
ligion  and  philosophy  of  Greeks  and  Jews  were  first  brought  into  con¬ 
tact,  the  Old  Testament  translated  into  Greek,  and  the  Platonising 
Judaism  of  Philo  and  his  school  invented.  So  numerous  were  these 
Egyptian  Jews,  that  a  temple  was  erected  for  them  under  the  priest¬ 
hood  of  Onias  (B.C.  150),  which  detracted  in  some  measure  from  the 
exclusive  claims  of  the  legitimate  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem.  Near  the 
site  of  this  Egyptian  temple,  at  a  place  called  Metacea,  an  old  tradition 
fixed  the  place  of  our  Lord’s  temporary  residence.  Besides  the  reasons 
just  suggested  for  selecting  Egypt  as  the  place  of  his  retreat,  there  was 
another  of  more  moment,  which  is  afterwards  expressly  mentioned  (see 
below,  on  v.  15).  Be  thou  (continue  or  remain)  there  till  I  tell  thee 
(otherwise  or  further),  or  till  I  say  to  thee  (what  thou  shalt  do).  This 
is  the  literal  translation  of  the  words  corresponding  to  Tyndale’s  para¬ 
phrase,  until  I  bring  thee  word.  Will  see'k.  or  is  about  to  seek,  the 
first  verb  (^t'AAft)  having  no  equivalent  in  English,  and  denoting  mere 
futurity,  but  with  more  distinctness  than  the  future  tense.  Seek  has 
here  its  proper  sense  of  search  or  look  for,  with  a  view  to  the  discovery 


36 


MATTHEW  2,13.14.15. 


of  his  home  or  hiding-place.  To  destroy^  or  (for  the  purpose)  of  d&- 
stroying^  an  idiom  sometimes  rey)resented  as  a  Hebraism,  but  found 
also  in  the  best  Greek  writers.  Ilim^  literall}',  it^  the  word  translated 
young  child  being  of  the  neuter  gender. 

14.  When  he  arose,  he  took  the  young  child  and  his 
mother  by  night,  and  departed  into  Egypt. 

This  verse  simply  states  the  execution  of  the  order  in  the  one  be¬ 
fore  it,  which  was  even  more  prompt  than  the  English  version  seems 
to  represent  it.  When  he  arose  might  seem  to  mean  that  he  waited 
till  his  ordinary  time  of  rising ;  whereas  the  literal  translation  is,  teing 
aroused^  or  haring  risen^  i.  e.  instantly,  without  de]a3\  This  idea  is 
moreover  suggested  by  the  phrase  at  nighty  or  in  {the)  night,  which 
would  be  unmeaning  if  he  waited  till  the  morning.  De'parted  is  the 
verb  already  twice  used  in  relation  to  the  retreat  of  the  wise  men,  and 
denoting  something  less  than  flight,  but  something  more  than  mere  de¬ 
parture.  (See  above,  on  vs.  12. 13.) 

15.  And  was  there  until  the  death  of  Herod  :  that  it 
might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  of  the  Lord  by  the 
prophet,  saying.  Out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my  Son. 

This  verse  describes  Joseph  as  passively  no  less  than  actively  obe¬ 
dient  to  the  words  of  the  angel.  He  not  only  went  into  Egypt,  but 
remained  there  {was  there),  a  correlative  expression  to  the  one  in  v.  31 
{he  there).  Till  the  death,  literally  end,  i.  e.  end  of  life,  a  term  occur¬ 
ring  only  here  in  the  Ne\Y  Testament,  but  used  in  the  Septuagint  ver¬ 
sion  (Gen.  27,2)  and  the  best  Greek  writers  as  an  euphemism  for 
death.  That  of  Herod  took  place  in  the  spring  of  750  U.  C.,  the  year 
being  fixed  by  an  eclipse  of  the  moon  about  tbe  same  time,  whicli,  ac- 
according  to  the  highest  astronomical  authorities,  could  not  have  oc¬ 
curred  in  any  other  year  within  a  reasonable  compass.  The  physical 
cause  of  Herod’s  death,  according  to  Josephus,  was  a  loathsome  and 
most  painful  malady.  That  it  might  he  fulfilled,  the  same  formula  es¬ 
sentially  with  that  in  1,  22,  but  without  the  emphatic  preface,  all  this 
happened.  The  words  here  quoted  are  still  extant  in  Hos.  11,  1,  and 
more  exactly  rendered  here  than  in  the  Septuagint  version,  which, 
instead  of  my  son,  reads  his  children.  But  the  first  person  was  cor¬ 
rectly  given  in  the  other  old  Greek  versions  of  Aqmla,  Symmachus,  and 
Theodotion.  Between  the  extreme  of  making  this  a  case  of  mere  ac¬ 
commodation,  and  that  of  making  the  original  passage  an  exclusive 
prophecy  of  Christ,  the  most  satisfactory  interpretation  is  the  one 
which  supposes  an  intended  typical  relation  between  the  history  of  Is¬ 
rael  and  that  of  the  Messiah,  as  the  Body  and  the  Head.  This  sig¬ 
nificant  analogy,  which  may  be  readil^^  traced  in  the  later  sufierings 
and  temptations  of  both  parties  is  also  visible  in  the  commencement  of 
their  several  careers.  As  the  national  existence  of  Israel  began  with 


MATTHEW  2,15.16. 


37 


the  exodus  from  Egypt,  so  the  early  life  of  the  great  antitype  sets  out 
from  the  same  poitit  of  departure.  The  same  thing  would  be  true  es¬ 
sentially  if  Bengel’s  exposition  were  the  true  one.  From  the  land  of 
Egypt  (i.  e.  ever  since  he  dwelt  there)  I  have  called  {him)  my  son. 
Compare  Exodus  4,  22.  23.  Hos.  12,  9.  13.  4.) 

16.  Then  Herod,  when  he  saw  that  he  was  mocked  of 
the  wise  men,  was  exceeding  wroth,  and  sent  forth,  and 
slew  all  the  children  that  were  in  Bethlehem,  and  in  all 
the  coasts  thereof,  from  two  years  old  and  under,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  time  which  he  had  diligently  inquired  of  the 
wise  men. 

Having  related  the  escape  to  Egypt  and  the  residence  there,  Mat¬ 
thew  now  returns  to  Herod  and  describes  the  effect  produced  upon  him 
by  the  failure  of  the  Magi  to  return  as  he  had  ordered  or  requested 
(see  above,  on  v.  8).  It  agrees  remarkably  with  Hcroa’s  character, 
as  known  to  us  from  other  sources,  that  he  is  here  described  as  acting 
not  from  politic  nor  even  from  malignant  motives  merely,  but  also 
from  a  sense  of  injured  dignity  and  wounded  pride.  His  cruelties  in¬ 
deed,  atrocious  as  they  were,  appear  to  have  been  prompted  not  so 
much  by  natural  blood-thirstiness  as  by  a  jealous  and  suspicious  tem¬ 
per,  especially  in  reference  to  rivalry  or  competition.  In  this  respect  a 
parallel  might  easily  be  drawn  between  his  downward  course  from  bad 
to  worse  and  that  of  Saul  in  his  jealous  enmity  of  David,  but  with 
this  advantage  on  the  part  of  Saul,  that  he  was  jealous  in  behalf  of  his 
own  children,  whereas  Herod,  with  a  sort  of  insane  selfishness,  com¬ 
mitted  his  worst  cruelties  upon  his  own  sons,  which  gave  rise  to  the 
famous  witticism  of  Augustus,  that  he  would  rather  be  Herod’s  hog  (in 
allusion  to  the  Jewish  abstinence  from  swine’s  flesh)  than  his  son,  a 
still  more  pointed  sarcasm  if,  as  some  suppose,  it  was  pronounced 
in  Greek  and  with  a  play  upon  the  likeness  of  the  words  denoting  hog 
(vs)  and  son  (vius).  By  a  singular  anachronism.  Macrobius,  a  Roman 
writer  of  the  fourth  century,  confounds  this  saying  and  the  act  by 
which  it  was  occasioned  with  the  prominent  massacre  recorded  in  the 
verse  before  us,  as  if  Herod’s  own  son  was  among  the  children  slain  at 
this  time,  whereas  he  was  put  to  death  after  he  had  reached  maturity. 
Matthew’s  narrative  is  also  in  acordance  with  the  general  teaching 
of  experience,  that  few  important  actions,  whether  good  or  bad.  are 
prompted  by  a  single  unmixed  motive.  This  accounts  for  the  di¬ 
versity  with  which  historians  explain  the  same  facts,  and  for  the 
mystery  overhanging  the  whole  subject  of  historical  causes  and  ef¬ 
fects,  where  the  result  depends  on  human  agency^  Seeing,  perceiv¬ 
ing,  that  is,  inferring  from  the  non-appearance  of  the  Magi,  on  their 
homeward  route  from  Bethlehem  (see  above,  on  v.  12).  Mocked 
is  in  Greek  a  compound  verb  derived  from  a  noun  meaning  child, 
and  itself  denoting  childish  sport  or  play,  but  also  used  by  the 
classical  writers  in  the  secondary  sense  of  fooling,  duping,  and  by  the 


38 


MATTHEW  2,16. 


Hellenists  in  thnt  of  scoffing  or  derisive^  insult,  being  thus  applied  to 
the  cruel  derision  of  our  Lord  before  his  crucifixion.* * * §  The  idea  here 
is  not  that  of  mere  deception,  i.  e.  breach  of  promise  or  disappointment 
of  his  expectation  (  Wiclif,  deceived)^  but  that  of  contemptuous  slight 
or  insult,  as  expressed  in  the  common  version,  mocked  of  e.  the 
wice  men.  Even  the  Rhemish  version  {deluded)  really  includes  the  no¬ 
tion  of  derision,  although  lost  in  modern  English  usage.  Exceeding 
wroth,  in  modern  English,  rery  angry ^  or  more  exactl.y,  rery  {much) 
enraged,  as  the  last  word  is  in  Greek  a  passive  verb,  derived  from  a 
noun  meaning  passion,  and  particulaidy  that  of  anger.f  The  remainder 
of  the  verse  describes  the  acts  to  which  this  fury  prompted  him. 
Sending  forth,  commissioning,  the  verb  from  which  apostle  is  derived. 
It  is  here  used  absolutely  or  intransitively,  as  in  14,  35.  27.  19  below. 
Tliere  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  supposing  a  grammatical  ellipsis  and 
supplying  messengers  or  men  of  war  (as  Cranmer  does).  Slew,  a  Greek 
verb  strictly  meaning  to  take  up  or  take  away  (as  in  Ileb.  10.  9j,  but 
commonly  employed,  like  our  despatch  or  make  away  with,  as  a  sort  of 
euphemism  for  the  act  of  killing.  Except  in  this  place  and  the  one 
just  cited,  it  is  usetl  exclusively  by  Luke,  occurring  in  his  two  books 
twenty  times,  and  always  in  the  secondary  sense  of  slaying  or  destroy¬ 
ing.  The  Rhemish  version  renders  it  too  sti-ongly,  murdered,  which, 
though  true  in  fact,  is  not  necessarily  included  in  the  import  of  the 
word  itself.  Children.,  i.  c.  male  children  (Geneva),  men-children 
(Rheims),  the  sense  being  limited  to  one  sex  by  the  masculine  adjec¬ 
tive  and  article  (rrdi/ras-  tov^)  and  by  the  usage  of  the  Greek  noun 
{rralbaCi  which  is  the  nearest  equivalent  to  our  word  5oy,  and  like  it 
sometimes  used  both  for  son  and  servant.  (See  below,  on  8,  6.  12,  18. 
14,  2.  17, 18.)  Coasts,  confined  in  modern  English  to  the  maritime 
borders  of  a  countr}’’,  but  of  old  denoting  boundaries  in  general,  and  in 
Srri[)ture  sometimes  the  territory  bounded  or  enclosed  between  them.J 
It  may  here  mean  either  the  immediate  outskirts  (suburbs)  or  the  dis¬ 
trict  dependent  upon  Bethlehem  as  its  chief  town.  In  either  case,  the 
tract  intended  must  have  been  a  small  one  (see  above,  on  v.  C).  From 
two  years  old,  in  Greek  an  adjective  (Sierofs)  meaning  biennial  (or  of 
two  years),  and  agreeing  with  some  noun  understood,  such  as  time 
(fi'om  the  age  of  two  years),  or  child  (from  the  boy  of  two  years), 
or  used  abstractly,  as  in  the  Vulgate  version  {a  bimatu).  §  And 
under,  a  comparative  form  of  the  adverb  (/edroj),  down  (see  below, 

*  See  below,  on  20, 19.  27,  29.  31,41,  also  Mark  15,  20.  Luke  23, 11,  and  com¬ 
pare  the  use  of  the  derivative  uo\xn^  mockery  and  mocker  in  lieb.  11,  36,  2  Pet. 
3,  3.  Jude  18. 

t  See  Luke  4,  28.  Acts  19,  28  (compare  12,  20).  Rom.  2,  8.  2  Cor.  12,  20.  Gal. 
5,20.  Eph.  4,  31.  Col.  3,  8.  Heb.  11,27,  aud  the  Book  of  Revelation  passim.  Ex¬ 
ceeding  in  old  English  is  an  adverb,  and  is  so  used  to  translate  the  same  Greek 
word  (x'lav)  iii  4,  8.  8,  28,  below,  while  in  27, 14,  it  is  rendered  greatly. 

X  See  below,  on  8,34.  15,21,  and  compare  Ex.  10,14.19.  Deut.  2,4.  16,4* 
19,3. 

§  It  occurs  only  here  in  the  New  Testament,  but  cognate  forms  and  similar 
constructions  may  be  found  in  the  Septuagint  version  (e.  g.  1  Chr.  27,  23.  2  Chr. 
81, 16.  Ezra  3, 8),  as  well  as  the  Apocrypha  (2  Mac.  10, 3),  and  even  in  Herodotus. 


39 


MATTHEW  2,16.17. 

on  4,  6.  26,  51),  and  here  denoting  lower  down  not  in  reference  to 
space  but  time,  i.  e.  under  or  heloio  the  age  just  mentioned.  AV"iclif 
has  within,  i.  e_.  within  the  limits  Just  defined.  Diligently  inquired, 
in  Greek  a  single  word,  the  same  that  was  efnploj^ed  above  in 
V.  7  and  there  explained  (Vulg.  exquisierat).  This  does  not  im¬ 
ply  that  Jesus  was  just  two  years  old  at  this  time,  but  rather  that 
.,ne  was  not,  as  appears  from  the  word  under.  In  the  former  case,  it 
Would  be  hard  to  account  for  the  long  delay  of  the  wise  men  either  in 
beginning  or  in  finishing  their  journey.  The  true  sense  is  that  two 
years  was  the  maximum  or  highest  age  consistent  with  the  statements 
of  the  jMagi,  while  the  real  age  was  no  doubt  far  below  it.  That  the 
tyrant  should  allow  himself  margin  in  this  devilish  infanticide,  and 
choose  rather  to  destroy  too  many  than  too  few,  is  in  perfect  keeping 
with  his  sanguinary  habits,  when  infiuenced  by  jealousy  or  hatred. 
The  silence  of  Josephus  with  respect  to  this  slaughter  of  the  innocents, 
as  it  is  beautifully  called  in  the  traditions  of  the  early  church,  has  been 
made  a  ground  of  cavil  by  some  modern  sceptics.  But  the  difficulty, 
if  it  be  one,  is  not  only  purely  negative  as  founded  on  ihe  silence  of  a 
single  writer,  but  susceptible  of  easy  explanation  from  the  obvious 
consideration,  that  the  male  children  under  two  years,  in  so  small  a 
town  as  Bethlehem  (see  above,  on  v.  G),  or  even  in  the  tract  of  which 
it  was  the  centre,  must  have  been  very  few.  and  that  the  interest  im¬ 
parted  to  the  massacre  by  its  connection  with  the  infant  Saviour  would 
be  wholly  wanting  to  a  Jewish  writer,  who  could  view  it  only  as  a 
small  drop  in  the  bloody  stream  of  Herod’s  cruelties.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  truth  of  the  occurrence  here  related  is  confirmed  by  its  anal¬ 
ogy  to  one  which  Josephus  does  record  among  the  last  acts  of  this 
jealous  tyrant,  namely,  his  command  that  a  number  of  the  chief  men 
should  be  put  to  death  as  soon  as  he  expired,  in  order  that  there  might 
be  mourning,  or  at  least  no  rejoicing,  at  his  own  departure.*  The  mo¬ 
tive  of  the  massacre,  as  we  have  seen  was  partly  politic  and  partly 
passionate.  While  this  appeared  to  be  the  only  way  in  which  a  feared 
and  hated  rival  could  be  reached,  it  seemed  at  the  same  time  to  gratify 
the  tyrant’s  proud  and  bestial  resentment.  This  agieement  between 
IMatthew  and  Josephus,  as  to  Herod’s  character,  even  in  relating 
wholly  different  events,  is  the  more  remarkable  because  he  appears 
here  only  for  a  moment  as  it  were  before  his  final  disappearance  from 
the  field  of  action,  thus  affording  a  strong  though  incidental  proof  of 
authenticity. 

•r 

17.  Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was  spoken  by 
Jeremy  the  prophet,  saying, 

This  too  was  the  fulfilment  of  a  prophecy  still  extant  in  the  He¬ 
brew  Scriptures  (Jer.  31,  15).  The  formula  of  reference  is  not  so- 

*  The  truth  of  this  too  has  been  called  in  question,  but  with  as  little  reason 
as  the  other,  and  tlie  sceptical  critics  are  constrained  to  own  that  both  events  are 
perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  life  and  character  of  Herod,  and  at  least  serve  to 
illustrate  the  Italian  proverb,  se  non  veto  ben  trovato. 


40 


MATTHEW  2,17.18. 


strong  as  that  in  1,  22,  nor  eren  as  that  in  v.  13  above.  The  expres¬ 
sion  here  is  not,  that  it  might  he  faljilled^  but  simply  that  it  was  fal- 
filled.  Hence  some  infer  that  this  is  a  case  of  mere  accommodation  or 
a  new  application  of  words  originally  uttered  in  relation  to  a  subject 
altogether  different.  But  the  difference  of  form  is  not  such  as  to  war¬ 
rant  this  distinction,  since  a  mere  accommodation  is  not  more  at  va¬ 
riance  with  the  statement  of  design  or  purpose  {that  it  might  he  ful¬ 
filled)  than  it  is  with  the  positive  assertion  of  the  fact  {then  it  was 
fulfilled).  The  question  whether  the  fulfilment  was  a  real  or  ficti¬ 
tious  one  must  be  determined,  not  by  the  prefatory  formula,  but  by 
the  meaning  of  the  prophecy  itself  and  by  its  correspondence  with  the 
facts  which  are  said  to  have  fulfilled  it. 


18.  In  Kama  was  there  a  voice  heard,  lamentation, 
and  weeping,  and  great  mourning,  Kacbael  weeping  (for) 
her  children,  and  would  not  he  comforted,  because  they 
are  not. 

The  original  passage,  by  a  fine  poetical  personification,  represents 
the  mother  of  Joseph  and  Benjamin  (Gen.  30,  24.  35,  18)  as  mourn¬ 
ing  over  the  captivity  of  Israel  at  Ramah,  where  Nebuzaradan,  the 
captain  of  the  Babylonian  guard,  appears  to  have  assembled  the  exiles, 
as  a  sort  of  rendezvous,  before  they  actually  left  the  country  (Jer.  40, 
1).  The  name  Ramah  properly  means  high,  and  is  so  understood  here 
by  Wiclif  {on  high)  and  Tyndale  {on  the  hills).  It  is  commonly  agreed, 
however,  that  it  here  denotes  a  particular  place,  namely,  Ramah  in 
Benjamin  near  Judah,  so  called  from  its  elevated  site,  five  or  six  miles 
north  of  Jerusalem,  between  Gibeah  and  Bethel  (Judges  19,  13).  It 
is  now  called  Erram  and  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  another  Ramah, 
the  birth-pla'^e  and  residence  of  the  prophet  Samuel  (1  Sam.  1.  19.  2, 
11.  7,  17).  Rachel,  though  not  the  mother  of  Judah,  was  buried  near 
Bethlehem  (Gen,  35,  IG.  19),  where  her  grave  is  still  shown,  and  is 
therefore  not  inappropriately  introduced  in  this  place  as  renewing  her 
old  lamentation  over  this  new  calamity  occurring  near  her  resting- 
place.  She  may  even  be  conceived  of  as  rising  from  her  tomb,  dis¬ 
turbed  in  her  long  rest  by  this  new  and  strange  catastrophe.  It  is 
not  however  merely  this  poetical  conception  that  is  here  embodied,  but 
a  real  affinity  between  the  cases.  The  point  of  resemblance  may  be 
that  in  either  case  the  temporary  suffering  was  the  precursor  of  a  joy¬ 
ful  future.  As  the  Babylonish  exile  was  soon  followed  by  the  Resto¬ 
ration  (see  Jer.  31,  16-40)  so  the  massacre  at  Bethlehem  was  followed 
b}’’  the  ministry  of  Christ  and  his  salvation.  The  quotation  vaides 
somewhat  from  the  Septuagint  version.  Rachel  may  be  construed 
with  a  verb  before  or  after  {was  heard  or  refused)  but  more  naturally 
as  an  independent  nominative.  Lamentation,  weeping,  and  mourn¬ 
ing.^  may  be  either  explained  as  synonyms,  or  as  denoting  articulate, 
inarticulate,  and  silent  sorrow.  The  first  of  the  three  is  omitted  in 
several  manuscripts  and  versions.  Would  not,  was  not  willing,  did 


MATTHEW  2,18.19.20. 


41 


not  choose,  refused.  Are  not^  or  as  it  is  more  fully  expressed  both  m 
Greek  and  English,  are  no  more^  i.  e.  no  longer  living.  The  force  of 
this  description  would  be  greatly  heightened  by  the  recollection  of  the 
circumstances  which  attended  llachel’s  own  death  (Gen.  35,  16-20). 

19.  But  when  Herod  was  dead,  behold,  an  angel  of 
the  Lord  appeareth  in  a  dream  to  Joseph  in  Egypt, 

But  (or  anB)  Herod  haring  ended  (his  life).  This  elliptical  use  of 
the  verb,  the  only  one  which  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  (see  be¬ 
low,  9,  18.  15,  4,  22,  25),  is  also  found  in  the  best  Greek  writers  from 
Herodotus  to  Xenophon  (compare  the  cognate  noun  in  v.  15  above). 
As  this  event,  according  to  Josephus,  took  place  about  the  Passover, 
and  was  preceded  by  an  eclipse  of  the  moon,  astronomers  are  able,  by 
these  data,  to  define  the  year,  viz.,  750  after  the  building  of  Rome,  and 
four  years  earlier  than  the  vulgar  idea  of  the  birth  of  Christ,  which 
was  introduced  by  Dionysius  Exiguus  more  than  five  hundred  years 
after  the  nativity  itself.  This  error,  which  is  now  universally  admit¬ 
ted,  although  its  exact  extent  is  still  disputed,  has  had  no  effect,  as 
Bossuct  well  observes,  upon  the  mutual  relation  or  the  chronological 
succession  of  events,  or  the  correctness  of  men’s  views  respecting 
them.  (See  above,  on  v.  2.)  Lo^  behold,  or  strange  to  say  (as  in  vs, 
1.  9.  13).-  In  Egypt^  where  he  had  been  ordered  to  remain  till  this 
time  (see  above,  on  v  13),  where  the  same  form  of  expression  is  em¬ 
ployed,  except  a  slight  change  in  the  order  of  the  words. 

20.  Saying,  Arise,  and  take  the  young  child  and  his 
mother,  and  go  into  the  land  of  Israel  :  for  they  are 
dead  which  sought  the  young  child's  life. 

The  first  clause  agrees  exactly  with  the  second  of  v.  13,  till  we 
come  to  the  word  Jiee^  which  is  exchanged  for  go,  or  rather  journey, 
set  out  (see  above,  on  v.  9 ),  because  what  is  here  described  was  not  a 
flight  but  a  return  home.  Land  {of)  Israel,  without  the  article,  pre¬ 
cisely  similar  in  this  respect,  though  riot  in  case  or  syntax,  to  land 
{of)  Judah  in  v.  6  above.  The  phrase  here  signifies  the  whole  coun¬ 
try,  two  of  the  provinces  or  parts  of  which  are  there  distinguished  in 
the  next  verse.  The  general  name  is  derived  from  the  inhabitants, 
like  the  older  designation  land  of  Canaan,  which  however  is  com¬ 
monly  restricted  to  the  country  west  of  Jordan,*  and  is  supposed  by 
some  to  be  a  physical  description  of  it  as  lowlands,  and  in  contrast 
wdth  the  highlands  of  Libanus  and  Syria.  Balestine  is  properly  the 
Greek  form  of  Philistia,  denoting  strictly  the  south-western  portion,! 
but  extended  by  the  Homans,  and  in  modern  usage,  to  the  entire  land 

*  See  Gen.  12,  5.  6.  37, 1.  50, 13.  Ps.  105, 11.  12.  Ezek.  16,3,  and  compare 
Num.  33,51.  Josh.  22,9.  11, 

t  See  Ex.  15, 14.  Isai.  14, 19.  21,  and  compare  the  Septuagint  version  of  Ps. 
60.8.  87,4.  108,9. 


42 


MATTHEW  2,20.21.22. 


of  Israel.  Are  dead^  or  more  exactly,  hare  died.  i.  e.  since  you  came 
away,  the  perfect  to  be  strictly  understood  as  usual  (see  above,  on  1, 
22).  The  plural  form,  those  seehing  (i.  e.  those  who  once  or  lately 
sought),  has  been  variously  explained  as  refeiring  to  Herod  and  his 
counsellors  as  agents,  or  to  Herod  and  his  son  Antipater,  who  resem¬ 
bled  him  in  cruelty,  and  had  still  more  reason  to  be  jealous  of  a  rival, 
though  eventually  put  to  death  fiv^e  days  before  his  father.  Others 
regard  it  as  a  majestatic  plural,  often  used  by  kings  in  speaking  of 
themselves,  but  w'holly  inappropriate  as  applied  to  Herod  by  an  angel. 
A  more  palpable  hypothesis  is  that  of  a  generic  plural,  sometimes  used 
in  reference  to  a  single  object.*  Somewhat  different  from  this  is  the 
indefinite  plural,  supposed  to  be  exemplified  in  Luke  12.  £0.  16,  9.  and 
inf  Ex.  14,  19,  which  appears  to  be  alluded  to,  if  not  directly  quoted, 
in  the  verse  before  us,  and  may  therefore  have  determined  its  peculiar 
form.  Upon  any  of  these  suppositions,  the  essential  fact  is  still  the 
death  of  Herod  himself.  Young  child.,  in  Greek  a  single  word,  but  a 
diminutive  in  form,  the  same  that  is  emplo3md  above  in  vs.  8.  11.  13. 
14.  Life,  a  word  which  properly  denotes  the  vital  principle  or  living 
substance,  and  is  therefore  sometimes  used  to  distinguish  the  soul  from 
the  hody  (as  in  10,  28.  and  perhaps  in  Luke  12^  2U),  but  is  here  and 
elsewhere  properly  translated  lifef 

21.  And  he  arose,  and  took  the  young  child  and  his 
mother,  and  came  into  the  land  of  Israel. 

This  is  the  simple  execution  of  the  order  in  the  verse  preceding, 
and  exactly  similar  in  form  to  v.  14  above,  excepting  that  l)y  night  is 
here  omitted,  there  being  no  necessity  for  hasty  flight  in  this  case,  and 
that  retired  into  Egypt  is  exchanged  for  came  into  {the)  land  {of)  Is¬ 
rael,  the  same  phrase  that  occui  red  just  before  (in  v.  20)  and  was 
there  explained.  The  indefinite  form  in  both  cases  might  be  repre¬ 
sented  in  English  by  the  idiomatic  combination,  Israel-land. 

22.  Eut  when  he  heard  that  Archelaus  did  reign  in 
Judea  in  the  room  of  his  father  Herod,  he  w^as  afraid  to 
go  thither  :  notwithstanding,  being  warned  of  God  in  a 
dream,  he  turned  aside  into  the  parts  of  Galilee  ; 

But  hearing,  on  the  way,  or  after  his  arrival  in  the  land  of  Israel. 
Archelaus,  tbe  eldest  son  of  Herod  the  Great,  b}'’  his  Samaritan  wife 
iMatthace,  to  whom  he  bequeathed  his  crowm  and  royal  title,  but  Au¬ 
gustus  only  partially  confirmed  the  will,  confining  his  dominions  to 
Judea,  Idumea,  and  Samaria,  and  requiring  him  to  bear  the  title  eih- 
narch  till  he  should  prove  himself  worthy  to  be  called  a  king. 

*  The  examples  iisually  cited  being  Matt.  2f)i  8  (compared  with  John  12,  24) 
and  27,44  (compared  with  Luke  23,  8a),  together  with  the  less  stiiking  cases 
found  by  some  in  9,  8.  12,4  21,27.  24,23.  Acts  7,  42.  13,40.  13,  13. 

t  See  below,  on  6, 25.  20,  28,  and  compare  Acts  20, 10.  Rom.  11, 3. 


MATTHEAV  2,22. 


43 


After  reigning  eight  or  nine  years  he  was  summoned  to  Rome  to  an¬ 
swer  charges  of  oppression  and  cruelty,  and  aftei'wards  banished  to 
Vienne  in  Gaul.  Bid  reign^  literally',  reigns^  is  reigning,  the  form  of 
expression  which  would  have  been  used  by  Joseph  himself,  or  by 
those  who  told  him  of  the  fact.  There  is  no  need  of  taking  the  verb 
reign  in  a  diluted  sense,  as  it  may  here  have  l  eference  to  the  time  im¬ 
mediately  succeeding  Herod’s  death,  before  his  will  was  broken  and 
his  successor’s  title  changed,  at  which  time,  as  we  learn  from  Josephus, 
Archelaus  was  congratulated  as  already  reigning  {rjhri  ^aa-CKcvovTa). 
In  (or  rather  over)  Judea^  the  received  text  (eVi)  being  retained  by 
the  latest  critics,  and  having  the  same  sense  as  in  Rev.  5,  10,  where 
the  construction  is  the  same,  and  in  Luke  1,  33.  19,  24.  27.  In  the 
room  (Tyndale’s  version)  is  in  Greek  a  preposition  (dvri)  often  ren¬ 
dered^  tor,  but  really  denoting  either  substitution  or  retaliation.* * * §  Was 
afraid^  a  passive  verb,  was  frightened,  or  alarmed,  which  is  the  origi¬ 
nal  import  also  of  the  English  word  {affrayed),  the  noun  derived  from 
which  and  still  in  use  {affray),  though  popularly  used  of  any  light, 
denotes  in  law,  according  to  Blackstone,  only  one  which  alarms  the 
vicinage.  The  passive  form  could  not  be  retained  here  in  the  version, 
because  our  idiom  does  notallow  it  to  be  construed  with  an  infinitive. 
The  explanation  of  the  words  as  meaning  that  he  did  go,  but  with  fear, 
is  wholly  at  variance  with  usage,  and  directly  reverses  the  true  sense 
of  the  expression.  To  go^  or  more  exactly,  to  go  away^  implying  that 
his  natural  course  would  have  been  to  go  elsewhere,  which  agrees  ex¬ 
actly  with  Luke’s  account  of  Mary’s  previous  residence  at  Nazareth. 
(See  Luke  1,26.  2,4.)  Thither^  literall}^  there.,  an  interchange  of 
prepositions  equally  familiar  to  the  Gi-eek  and  English  idiom,  though 
commonly  expunged  in  our  translation.!  Notivithstanding  (T3mdale’3 
version)  is  in  Greek  the  usual  connective  (SO?  here  little  stronger 

than  our  and.  Warned  of  God  in  a  dream.,  the  same  words  that 
were  used  above  in  v.  12,  and  there  explained.  Warned  must  here  be 
understood  as  meaning  admonished  or  instructed  with  authority. 
Tamed  aside  (Tyndale’s  version)  is  the  verb  rendered  departed  in  vs. 
12.  14,  but  in  all  three  places  meaning  retired,  retreated,  with  an  im¬ 
plication  of  escape  from  danger.  Parts  of  Galilee,  not  portions  of 
th  at  province,  but  that  part  of  the  country  so  called.^  Galilee,  a  He¬ 
brew  word  which  originall}^  means  a  ring  (as  in  Esth.  1,  6.  Song  Sol. 
5.  14)  or  circle,  and  like  the  latter  term  is  applied  to  geographical  di¬ 
visions,  being  sometimes  rendered  (in  the  plural)  coasts  (Joel  3,  4) 
and  borders  (Josh.  13,  2),  but  commonly  applied  as  a  proper  name 
(  Galilee)  to  tlie  northernmost  province  of  the  land  of  Israel,  as  di¬ 
vided  by  the  Syrians  and  Romans,  l3dng  between  Phenicia  and  Sama¬ 
ria,  the  Jordan  and  tiie  xMediterj-anean.§  The  remoteness  of  this  dis- 

*  See  below,  5,  38.  20,  28,  and  compare  Luke  11, 11.  Rom.  12, 17.  1  Th.  5, 
15.  Ileb.  12,  2.  16.  1  Pet.  3,  9. 

+  See  the  original  of  Jno.  18,  3.  Lu.  24,  28.  Jas.  3,4.  Dent.  1,37.  4,  42. 

X  Compare  the  local  use  of  the  same  plural  noun  in  Acts  2, 10.  20,  2,  and  also 
in  15,  21.  16,  13  below,  and  Acts  19, 1,  where  it  is  translated  coasts,  in  the  seuse 
before  explained.  (See  above,  on  v.  16.) 

§  See  Josh.  20,7.  21,32.  1  Kings  9, 11.  2  Kings  15,  29. 


44 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  2,  22.  23. 


trict  from  Jerusalem  and  its  proximity  to  the  heathen,  perhaps  with 
some  mixture  of  the  population,  as  exj)ressed  in  the  name  Galilee  of 
the  nations  or  the  Gentiles  (Isai.  9, 1.  Matt.  4,  15),  seem  to  have  low¬ 
ered  it  in  Jewish  estimation  (John  7,  41.  52),  although  the  Galileans 
professed  the  same  religion  and  frequented  the  same  sacred  places 
(John  4,  45.  7,  2.  11,  56). 


23.  And  he  came  and  dwelt  in  a  city  called  Naza¬ 
reth  :  that  it  might  he  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the 
prophets^  He  shall  he  called  a  Nazareue. 

Having  stated  why  he  took  up  his  abode  in  Galilee  and  not  in 
Judea,  Matthew  now  explains  the  choice  of  a  particular  locality 
within  the  first-named  province.  Coming^  or  having  come,  is  not  a 
pleonasm  or  superfluous  expression,  hut  a  distinct  statement  of  his 
arrival  in  the  province,  followed  by  his  settlement  in  Nazareth.  As  if 
he  had  said,  for  these  reasons  he  came  to  Galilee  and  not  Judea,  and 
having  come  he  dwelt,  or  rather  settled,  took  up  his  abode.  The 
Greek  verb  does  not  of  itself  denote  either  permanent  or  temporary 
residence,  but  rather  the  act  of  settling  or  beginning  to  reside,  as  in  4, 
13.  12,  45.  Luke  11,  26.  Acts  2,  5.  7,  2.  4,  whether  the  subsequent 
abode  be  temporary  (as  in  Heb.  ll,  9)  or  permanent  (as  in  Acts  9,  32. 
17,  26,  and  often  in  the  Book  of  Bevelation.)  In.  literally  into,  a  famil¬ 
iar  idiom  where  previous  motion  is  implied  though  not  expressed.* 
A  city,  in  the  wide  sense,  or  a  town,  in  its  proper  English  acceptation, 
as  including  villages  and  cities,  both  which  terms  are  applied  in  the 
New  Testament  to  Bethlehem.  (Compare  Luke  2,4.11  with  John 
7,  42.)  The  indefinite  expression  {a  town  or  city)  implies  that  it  was 
not  a  place  universally  well  known  like  Jerusalem  or  even  Bethlehem. 
There  is  no  doubt,  however,  as  to  its  identity,  since  it  has  been  visited 
by  travellers  and  pilgrims  almost  without  interruption  from  the  time 
of  Christ  until  the  present  day.  It  is  situated  on  the  northern  edge  of 
the  great  central  plain  of  Jezrecl  or  Esdraelon,  into  wliich  it  opens 
through  a  narrow  pass  in  the  wall  of  hills  by  which  it  is  surrounded. 
The  name  Nazareth  seems  to  bean  Aramaic  form  (njt'i^iD)  of  a  Hebrew 

word  (“i:iJ3)  meaning  a  shoot  or  twig,  and  applied  by  Isaiah  (11,1)  to 

the  Messiah  as  a  shoot  from  the  prostrate  trunk  or  stem  of  Jesse, 
i.  e.  to  his  birth  from  the  royal  family  of  Judah  in  its  humble  and  re¬ 
duced  estate.  This  coincidence  of  name,  as  well  as  the  obscurity  of  Naza¬ 
reth  itself  and  the  general  contempt  for  Galilee  at  large,  established  an 
association  between  our  Lord’s  humiliation  and  his  residence  at  this 
place,  so  that  various  predictions  of  his  low  condition  were  fullill- 
ed  in  his  being  called  a  Nazarene.  This  is,  on  the  whole,  more  sat¬ 
isfactory  than  any  other  explanation  of  this  difficult  and  doubtfid 
passage.  That  which  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  Nazaritic  vow  of  the 

*  Compare  Mark  1,39.  2,1.  13,9.16.  Luke  11,7.  21. 37.  John  9,7.  Acts  7,4. 
8,39.40.  18,21.  21,12.13.  23,11. 


45 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  2,  23. 

Old  Testament  (see  Numbers  6, 1-21) ;  or  to  Samson  in  particular 
as  one  of  that  class  (Judg.  13,  5),  and  a  type  of  Christ,  is  at  variance 
witli  our  Lord’s  mode  of' life,  which  was  not  that  of  a  Nazarite  (see 
below,  on  11, 19),  and  with  the  usual  orthography  of  that  word  in 
the  Septuagint  version.  Still  less  admissible  is  the  reference,  assumed 
by  some,  to  another  Hebrew  word  which  means  a  crown,  or  the  sup¬ 
position  of  some  early  writers  that  the  passage  quoted  has  been  lost 
from  the  Hebrew  text  by  negligence  or  expunged  by  fraud,  both 
which  contingencies  are  utterly  forbidden  by  the  care  with  which  that 
text  has  been  preserved  and  guai  ded  both  before  and  since  the  time 
of  Christ.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  admit  a  reference  to  various  pre¬ 
dictions  of  our  Lord’s  humiliation  with  particular  allusion  to  his  birth 
from  the  humbled  house  of  David,  as  foretold  by  Isaiah  (11,1),  this 
accounts  both  for  the  plural  and  indefinite  form  {the  prophets),  and  for 
the  stress  laid  upon  the  local  name,  which  is  identical  with  that  applied 
to  the  Messiah  in  the  particular  prediction  just  referred  to.  This  was 
not  the  fortuitous  result,  but  the  providential  purpose  of  Christ’s  res¬ 
idence  at  Nazareth.  The  meaning  is  not  that  Joseph  so  designed  it, 
but  that  God  so  willed  it.  The  formula  of  reference  is  tlie  same  with 
that  employed  in  v.  15,  there  explained.  He  shall  he  called,  not  merely 
in  the  sense  of  being  entitled  to  be  so  called  (see  above,  on  1,  23),  but 
in  that  of  actually  hearing  the  name  here  imposed  in  real  life,  as  we 
know  the  Saviour  to  have  done,  though  the  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy 
is  rendered  less  clear  to  the  English  reader  by  the  constant  substitution 
of  the  paraphrase  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  which  occurs  only  twice  in  the 
original  (John  1,46.  Acts  10,28)  for  the  exact  phrase  elsewLere 
used,  Jesus  the  Nazarene.  Even  in  the  mouth  of  the  Apostles  and  of 
Christ  himself,  this  phrase  has  reference  to  its  original  derisive  im¬ 
port,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  i.  e.  whom  you  have  treated  with  contempt 
by  that  name.*  This  explanation  of  the  purpose  for  which  Joseph 
was  led  to  take  up  his  abode  at  Nazareth,  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
the  fact  of  his  previous  residence  at  that  place  as  alleged  by  Luke 
(1,  27.  2,  4.  39.  51).  That  it  was  not  before  mentioned  arises  from 
the  peculiar  plan  of  this  first  gospel,  the  grand  design  of  which  is  to 
demonstrate  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  and  which  introduces  only 
such  historical  events  as  have  a  bearing  on  this  purpose,  which  the 
early  residence  of  Joseph  and  Mary  at  Nazareth  had  not. 

*  See  John  1,45.46.  18,5.7.  19,19.  Acts  2,  22.  3,6.  4,10.  6,14.  10,38.  22, 
8.  26,  9. 


46 


MATTHEW  3,1. 


CHAPTEK  HI. 

Having  recorded  the  genealogy  and  birth  of  Christ,  with  the  events 
vdiich  led  to  his  residence  at  Nazareth,  the  evangelist  now  proceeds 
to  describe  his  public  ministry,  beginning,  however,  with  that  of  John 
the  Baptist,  which  preceded  it  and  introduced  it.  Omitting,  as 
already  known,  or  unimportant  for  his  special  purpose,  the  earl}'"  his¬ 
tory  of  John  himself,  Matthew  introduces  him  abruptly  at  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  his  public  work,  with  an  exact  specification  of  its  scene  (1) 
and  subject  (2),  its  relation  to  prophecy  (3)  and  to  the  habits  of  the 
ancient  prophets  (4),  its  effect  upon  the  people  (6.  6),  and  a  specimen 
of  John’s  fidelity  and  earne.stness  in  dealing  with  all  classes  (7).  exhort¬ 
ing  them  to  reformation  (8),  W'arning  them  against  false  confidence 
(9)  and  impending  judgments  (10)  and  defining  his  position  as  a 
baptizer  with  respect  to  his  superior  who  was  to  follow  (11),  and 
w^hose  coming  must  be  cither  saving  or  destructive  to  the  souls  of  those 
who  heard  him  (12).  To  this  description  of  John’s  ministry  in  gen¬ 
eral  is  added  a  particular  account  of  his  principal  official  act,  which 
also  forms  a  natural  transition  to  the  ministry  of  Christ  himself  (lo¬ 
ll).  This  was  his  own  baptism,  as  to  which  we  are  informed  of  the 
localities  (13),  of  John’s  refusal  (14),  of  our  Lord’s  reply  and  John’s 
compliance  (15),  and  of  the  divine  i-ecognition  of  our  Lord  as  the  Mes¬ 
siah,  addressed  both  to  the  eye  (1C)  and  to  the  ear  (17)  of  the 
spectators.  This  view  of  the  narrative  contained  in  the  thirdi  chapter 
will  suffice  to  show  that  it  is  in  its  proper  place,  betw^een  the  account 
of  his  nativity  and  infancy  that  goes  before,  and  that  of  his  temptation 
and  the  opening  of  his  ministr}'-  that  follows. 

1.  In  those  days  came  John  the  Baptist,  preaching 
in  the  wilderness  of  Judea. 

In  those  days^  an  indefinite  expression,  used  not  only  in  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  (as  in  Ex.  2,11.  Isai.  38,  1),  but  by  the  best  Greek  and  Latin 
writers  (as  Herodotus,  Virgil,  and  Livy),  in  reference  either  to  a  period 
of  a  few  days  (as  in  Acts  1, 15),  or  of  many  years,  as  in  the  case  be¬ 
fore  us,  where  there  is  a  blank  of  nearly  thirty  years  (see  Luke  3,  2. 
23),  filled  elsewhere  only  by  a  single  incident  ( Luke  2, 42-52),  and 
that  removed  from  what  is  here  recorded  by  an  interval  of  eighteen 
years.  This  protracted  period  of  private  discipline  and  preparation 
in  the  life  both  of  Christ  and  his  forerunner,  is  in  striking  contrast 
with  our  own  impatience  even  under  the  most  hurried  superficial  pro¬ 
cesses  of  education.  The  reference  of  those  days  to  the  Saviour’s  res¬ 
idence  in  Nazareth,  although  not  necessarily  included  in  the  meaning 
of  that  vague  phrase,  is  true  in  fact,  and  with  the  continuative  par¬ 
ticle  (fiti)  serves  to  connect  what  is  here  said  with  the  immediately 
preceding  context  (2,  23).  It  is  also  in  accordance  w*ith  the  usage  of 


47 


MATTHEW  3,1. 

the  phrase  itself,  which,  even  when  most  inrlefinite,  always  has  respect 
to  something  prev  ously  mentioned.  In  those  daijs^  i.  c.  while  he  was 
still  resident  at  Nazareth.  The  corrupted  or  apociyphal  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews,  as  we  learn  from  Epiphanius,  had  here  the  lull  but  false  speci¬ 
fication,  “  in  the  days  of  Herod  the  king,”  fnnn  which  some  ground¬ 
lessly  suppose  the  clause  before  us  to  have  been  abridgcl,  without  re¬ 
gard  to  its  inaccuracy.  That  the  phrase  (m  those  days)  cannot  mean 
at  the  precise  time  mentioned  in  2, 23,  is  plain  from  what  follows  and 
from  a  comparison  of  Luke’s  more  exact  chronological  specifications 
(3,  1.  2.23),  which  may  be  used  to  illustrate  the  narrative  before  ns, 
but  are  not  to  be  incorporated  with  it,  because  not  included  in  the 
plan  and  purpose  of  Matthew’s  Gospel.  Game  is  in  Greek  the  graphic 
present,  comes,  arrives,  or,  retaining  the  pi'ecise  sense  of  the  compound 
ver^,  becomes  neai^  at  hand,  or  present.  The  same  form  is  common  in 
the  Septuagint  version,  and  another  of  the  same  verb  is  applied  in  the 
Apocr3q3ha  (1  IMacc.  4,  40)  to  the  future  or  prospective  appearance  of  a 
Prophet  in  Israel,  after  the  long  suspension  of  the  office.  In  like 
manner  it  is  used  of  Christ’s  a[)pearance  (Ileb.  9,  II),  and  here  of 
John  the  Baptist,  not  as  a  private  person,  but  a  preachei-  and  baptiz- 
cr.  John^  a  Hebrew  name,  the  etymology  uf  which  suggests  the  idea 
of  divine  grace  or  favour.  The  circumstances  of  its  imposition,  with 
the  other  incidents  of  John’s  conception  and  nativity,  omitted  here  by 
Matthew,  because  not  essential  to  his  argument  in  proof  of  the  Mes- 
siahship  of  Jesus,  are  detailed  with  great  particularit}^  by  Luke  (1,  5— 
25.  57-66),  as  necessary  parts  of  a  methodical  biography  or  histoiy. 
dlie  Baptist  (or  Baptizer)^  a  definite  description,  presupposing  some 
acquaintance  with  his  name,  as  that  of  a  historieal  person  on  tlie  part 
of  the  original  readers.  Some  of  the  older  writers  understood  him  to 
be  so  called  simply  as  the  person  who  baptized  our  Saviour,  John  the 
Baptizer  {of  Jesus).  But  this,  although  the  most  important  and  most 
honourable  act  of  his  official  life,  is  only  one  out  of  the  many  that 
entitled  him  to  bear  the  name  in  question,  which  describes  him,  not 
by  that  one  act,  but  by  the  rite  which  distinguished  his  ministry  from 
all  before  it,  and  is,  therefore,  sometimes  used  to  designate  it  as  a 
whole.*  Breaching.^  a  verb  so  rendered  more  than  fifty  times  in  our 
version,  but  four  times  publish  (Mark  5,  2<'.  7,36.  11,16.  Luke  8, 
39),  and  \;sx\q.q  proclaim  (Luke  12,3.  Rev.  5,2).  It  properly  denotes 
the  act  of  a  public  crier,  or  a  herald,  announcing  or  proclaiming  some¬ 
thing  by  authority.  This  primary  and  strict  sense  of  the  term  must 
not  be  superseded  by  the  technical  and  modern  usage  of  the  word 
preaching.^  as  applied  to  formal  and  official  religious  teaching.  In 
this  sense,  it  is  probable  that  neither  John  nor  the  Apostles  preached, 
while  Christ  was  with  them  (see  below,  on  10,  7.)  It  is  at  least  not 
the  main  act  here  ascribed  to  John,  which  is  rather  that  of  announ¬ 
cing,  giving  notice,  that  the  long-expected  advent  of  the  Messiah  was 
at  last  approaching  or  arrived,  as  expressed  more  fuily  in  the  next 
verse.  Wildeimess,  like  the  corresponding  word  in  Hebrew,  does  not 


*  See  below  on  21,  25,  and  compare  Acts  1, 22.  10,  37.  18,  25.  19, 3.  4. 


48 


MATTHEW  3,  1.  2. 


necessarily  or  always  signify  a  sandy  desert,  nor  even  an  unbroken 
forest,  but  merel}’’  the  uncultivated  land  as  distinguished  from  that 
under  tillage,  but  consisting  often  of  rich  pastures,  and  inhabited, 
though  not  so  densely  as  the  other  portions.  IlemJB  we  read  of  men 
residing,  and  of  towns  or  cities,  in  the  wilderness.  (See  Josh.  15,  Gl. 
G2.  Judg.  1,  IG.  1  Sam.  25, 1.  2).  The  first  two  passages  just  cited, 
and  the  title  of  Ps.  G3,  mention  the  wilderness  of  Juda\  or,  as  it  is 
here  called,  Judea  (see  above,  on  2, 1.  G).  This  cannot  mean  the  coun¬ 
try,  as  distinguished  from  the  towns  or  cities,  of  that  province,  which 
is  altogether  contrary  to  usage.  Nor  does  it  mean  that  John  was 
traversing  the  less  frequented  portions  of  the  country.  The  ministry 
here  spoken  of  was  stationary,  and  the  wilderness  must  therefore  bo 
a  definite  locality.  It  does  not  mean,  however,  the  great  desert 
stretching  from  Tekoa  to  the  Persian  Gulf,  which  could  not  have  been 
called  the  desert  of  Judea  simply  because  it  begins  or  ends  there,  but 
denotes  specifically  that  part  of  Judea  itself  which  is  adjacent  to  the 
Dead  Sea  and  the  Jordan,  without  any  very  definite  limits,  as  none 
such  probably  existed.  Josephus,  in  describing  the  course  of  the  Jor¬ 
dan  from  the  lake  of  Genessaret  to  the  Dead  Sea,  speaks  of  it  as  tra¬ 
versing  much  desert  territory  (TToWrjv  uuafjLerpovfxepos  eprjfxlav).  This 
relates  to  the  upper  or  external  valley  of  the  Jordan,  while  the  inner 
or  immediate  bed  has  always -been  luxuriantly  fertile.  It  was  not 
rnei'ely  optional  or  accidental,  but  a  material  part  of  John’s  commis¬ 
sion,  that  he  should  make  his  appearance  as  a  herald  and  forerunner 
far  from  the  ordinary  haunts  of  men,  and  instead  of  seeking  them 
should  be  sought  by  them.  In  this  respect  he  symbolized  or  repre¬ 
sented  the  segregation  of  the  Jewish  church  from  other  nations  under 
the  restrictive  institutions  of  the  old  economy. 

2.  And  saying,  Eepent  ye  ;  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
is  at  hand. 

This  verse  gives  the  subject  or  substance  of  John’s  ^jreacJiing,  in 
his  own  words,  not  as  uttered  upon  any  one  occasion,  much  less  as  re¬ 
peated  without  change  on  all  occasions,  but  as  a  summary  and  sample 
of  his  constant  proclamation  or  announcement.  And  saying  is  a  di¬ 
rect  continuation  of  the  sentence  from  the  verse  preceding,  ‘preaching 
and  saying,  i.  e.  pi'oclaiming  b}^  (or  in  the  act  of;  saying  (what  imme¬ 
diately  follows).  This,  though  sometimes  represented  as  a  Hebrew 
idiom,  is  a  simple  and  natural  expression  equally  at  home  in  any  language. 
Repent,  a  Greek  verb  properly  denoting  afterthought,  reflection,  and 
then  change  of  mind,  including  both  the  judgment  and  the  feelings, 
upon  moral  subjects,  with  particular  reference  to  one’s  own  character 
and  conduct,  with  an  implication  of  improvement  or  reform  in  both. 
Evangelical  repentance  is  not  mere  amendment  nor  mere  sorrow  for 
sin,  but  comprehends  them  both.  The  latter  is  expressed  by  a  distinct 
Greek  verb,  which  is  used  to  denote  even  the  remorse  of  Judas  (see 
below,  on  27,  3).  The  repentance  to  which  John  the  Baptist  called 
the  Jews  was  a  total  reformation  of  both  heart  and  life,  as  an  im- 


49 


MATTHEW  3,2.3. 

mediate  preparation  for  the  advent  of  Messiah.  The  same  necessity  is 
urgjd  not  only  in  ihe  prophecies  (especially  in  i\lal.  4,5.6),  but  also  in 
the  later  Jewish  books,  and  particularly  in  the  saying,  that  when  Is¬ 
rael  repents  a  single  day,  the  Messiah  will  immediately  appear.  The 
hhigdoin  of  ]ieadeti\^  a  favourite  expression  in  this  gospel,  parallel  and 
equivalent  to  kingdoin  of  God  in  the  others.*  It  appears  to  be  derived 
from  the  prophecies  of  Daniel,  where  it  is  applied  to  the  kingdom 
which  God  himself  was  to  erect  upon  the  ruins  of  the  four  great  em¬ 
pires,  the  successive  rise  and  fall  of  which  are  so  explicitly  foi-etold  in 
that  book.  This  final  and  everlasting  reign  is  that  of  the  Messiah, 
both  in  its  inception  and  its  consummation,  one  of  which  is  sometimes 
prominent,  sometimes  the  other.  Heaven  (or  heavens)^  in  this  phrase, 
is  not  put  for  God  himself  (as  some  explain  the  same  word  elsewhere), 
nor  for  a  state  of  perfect  blessedness  hereafter  (as  it  sometimes  does 
mean),  but  for  that  hcavcnlv  condition  of  society  or  of  the  church, 
which  was  to  commence  at  Christ’s  first  advent  and  to  be  completed 
at  the  second.  Is  at  liand^  literally,  has  apijroached  (or  eome  near) 
i.  e.  lately  and  in  consequence  of  recent  changes,  namely,  the  concep¬ 
tion,  birth,  and  adolescence  of  Messiah.  The  idea  is  not  that  his  reign 
was  once  near  but  is  so  no  longer,  nor  that  it  is  now  near  and  has  al- 
waj's  been  so,  but  the  intermediate  notion  that  it  has  lately  become 
nearer  than  it  ever  was  before. 

3.  For  this  is  he  that  was  spoken  of  by  the  prophet 
Esaias,  saying,  The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness, 
Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  his  paths  straight. 

Some  regard  these  as  the  words  of  John  himself,  who  i.s  certainly 
represented  elsewhere  (John  1,  23)  as  applying  the  same  prcdicMon  to 
his  own  ministry.  There  is  no  objection  to  this  construction  from  the 
use  of  the  demonstrative  pronoun  (^Aw),  which  would  then  be  pre¬ 
cisely  the  same  as  in  John  6,  50.  58.  But  most  interpreters  suppose 
the  citation  to  be  made  by  the  evangelist,  as  in  the  parallel  accounts 
(Mark  1,3.  Luke  3,  4).  For  assigns  the  reason  of  his  uttering  the 
woi-ds  in  the  preceding  verse,  to  wit,  because  he  was  the  herald  fore¬ 
ordained  to  do  so.  This^  the  person  just  described  as  so  proclaiming. 
It  is  not  necessarily  implied  that  the  prediction  was  fulfilled  in  John 
alone,  but  merely  that  he  was  the  last  in  the  succession  of  forerunners, 
and  in  some  respects  the  greatest  (see  below’,  on  11,11).  The  use 
made  of  the  prophecy  is  not  an  elegant  accommodation,”  but  an  au¬ 
thoritative  exposition  of  its  true  sense  and  a  legitimate  application  to 
its  real  subject.  The  present  tense  (is)  does  not  show  these  to  be  tho 
W’ords  of  John,  or  necessarily  refer  to  the  preceding  verb  (lias  come 
near  or  approached).  It  may  just  as  well  have  reference  to  the  present 
(comes,  appears)  in  v.  1,  or  to  the  general  fact  of  John’s  position  in 

*  See  below,  on  5, 3.  19.  20.  10,  7.  11, 11. 12,  and  compare  Mark  1, 14. 15.  4, 
11.  9, 1,  &c. 


3 


50 


MATTHEW  3,3. 


the  scheme  of  prophecy  and  history.  The  (one)  spolcen  of  or  mentioned 
dy,  (as  in  2, 17),  or,  according  to  the  Syriac  version  and  the  latest 
ci-itics,  through  (as  in  1,  22.  2,  5. 15 ),  i.  e.  by  his  instrumental  agency, 
or  through  liim  as  a  medium  or  an  organ  of  communication.  The 
prophet  Isaiah^  not  a  certain  prophet  so  called,  but  the  well-known 
and  illustrious  prophet  of  that  name.  The  passage  quoted  is  still  ex¬ 
tant  in  the  Hebrew  text  (Isai.  40,  3)  and  in  the  Septuagint  version, 
from  which  it  is  here  taken  with  little  variation.  Saying  might  seem 
in  English  to  agree  with  this  ;  but  there  is  no  such  ambiguity  in  the 
original,  where  the  form  of  the  word  shows  that  it  agrees  with  the 
prophet  Isaiah^  all  these  words  being  in  the  genitive  singular  mascu¬ 
line.  The  noice^  or,  more  exactly,  a  roice,  may  be  construed  with  a 
verb  understood,  (there  is)  a  voice,  or  a  voice  (is  heard)]  but  it  is 
rather  an  abrupt  exclamation  or  ejaculation,  as  if  he  had  said,  ‘  Hark,  a 
voice,’  perhaps  with  the  additional  idea  of  a  long-continued  previous  si¬ 
lence.  John  is  supposed  by  some,  perhaps  too  fancifully,  to  be  called 
a  voice,  i.  e.  a  transient,  momentary  utterance,  as  contrasted  with  the 
Word,  or  permanent  revealer  of  the  Father  who  came  after  him  (John  1, 
1.  8).  It  may  also  be  an  undue  refinement,  though  a  pleasing  one,  to  sup¬ 
pose  that  he  is  here  represented  as  a  voice,  because  liis  life  was  vocal 
no  less  than  his  lips,  the  whole  man  being  as  it  were  a  sermon.  Of  (one) 
crying  is  the  Rhemish  translation  of  a  word  ((^oSvrns)  variously  ren¬ 
dered  in  the  older  English  versions,  of  him  that  crieth  (Geneva  Bible), 
of  a  crier  (Wiclif,  Tyndale,  Cranmcr).  In  Greek  it  is  the  participle 
of  a  verb  which  means  to  cry  aloud,  and  is  especially  applied  to  tiie 
roaring  or  bellowing  of  certain  animals,  and  therefore  used,  as  some 
suppose,  to  signify  the  vehemence  and  harshness  of  John’s  ministra¬ 
tions.  The  original  construction  in  isaiah  seems  to  be  a  voice  crying  ; 
but  the  genitive  construction,  here  adopted  from  the  Septuagint,  con¬ 
veys  substantially  the  same  idea.  In  the  desert  is  connected  by  the 
Hebrew  accents  with  what  follows  (in  the  wilderness.  Prepare,  Ac.),  and 
the  same  construction  is  here  possible,  though  not  so  natural  as  that 
which  couples  it  with  voice  and  crying S  But  they  both  amount  to 
the  same  thing,  what  is  formally  expressed  in  one  case,  being  really  im¬ 
plied  or  incidentally  suggested  in  the  other.  If  the  command  was  ut¬ 
tered  in  the  desert,  it  was  in  order  to  its  being  there  obeyed  or  carried 
into  execution  (Bengel :  iibi  vox  ibi  auditores),  as  if  it  had  been  said, 
‘  Here  prepare,’  &c.  The  wilderness  primarily  meant  in  the  original 
prediction  is  a  metaphorical  or  moral  one,  to  wit,  the  spiritual  desola¬ 
tion  of  the  church  or  chosen  people,  through  which  God  is  represented 
as  returning  to  them,  a  common  figure  in  the  Scriptures  for  the  resto- 
I’ation  of  his  favour  or  his  gracious  presence,  after  any  interruption 
caused  by  sin.  The  twofold  allusion,  assumed  by  most  interpreters,  to 
the  restoration  from  the  Babylonish  exile,  and  to  the  ancient  oriental 
usage  of  opening  and  clearing  roads  before  armies  on  tlie  march  or  sov¬ 
ereigns  upon  journeys,  is  by  no  means  certain  or  necessary.  The  latter 
is  no  peculiar  local  usage,  but  one  which  may  be  practised  anywhere 


*  .For  a  similar  departure  from  the  Masoretic  accents,  compare  Heb.  3, 7. 


51 


MATTHEW  3,  3. 

in  case  of  need.*  The  former  rests  upon  a  dubious  assumption  as  to 
the  connection  between  the  thirt3'-nintli  and  fortieth  chapters  of  Isaiah, 
and  is  countenanced  by  no  explicit  reference  to  Babylon,  or  to  the  cap¬ 
tivity  there,  in  the  text  or  context.  The  terms  of  the  prophecy  may  be 
applied  to  any  reconciliation  between  Jehovah  and  his  people,  but  are 
especially  appropriate  to  that  which  was  expected  to  accompany  the 
advent  of  Messiah  and  the  change  of  dispensations.  AVlien  the  ‘‘ful¬ 
ness  of  the  time”  for  those  events  was  come  (Gal.  4,4),  the  moral  con¬ 
dition  of  the  Jews  might  well  be  represented  as  a  wilderness  or  desert, 
through  which  the  way  of  their  returning  God  must  be  prepared  anew. 
But  while  this  was  the  primary  and  full  sense  of  the  prophecy,  which 
could  only  be  morally  accomplished,  the  literal  fulfilment  of  its  terms 
by  John’s  actual  appearance  in  a  wilderness,  seemed  both  to  identify 
him  as  its  subject  and  to  prepare  the  minds  of  men  for  its  fulfilment  in 
a  higher  and  more  spiritual  sense.  Examples  of  the  same  twofold  ac¬ 
complishment,  intended  to  secure  the  same  end,  are  by  no  means  un¬ 
known  to  the  history  of  Christ  himself,  and  more  particularly  of  his 
passion. t  At  the  same  time  John’s  appearance,  not  in  the  temple  or 
the  synagogue  or  even  in  the  streets  of  the  Holy  Cit\’.  but  in  an  ac¬ 
cessible  though  somewhat  distant  solitude,  enhanced  his  fitness  as  a 
living  symbol  of  the  law,  in  its  conti  ast  with  the  Gospel,  as  explained 
above  (on  v.  1).  Pre'pare^  in  the  original  prediction,  means  a  particu¬ 
lar  mode  of  preparation,  namel}'',  the  removal  of  obsti'uctions,  corre¬ 
sponding  to  the  English  clear,  in  reference  both  to  roads  and  houses, J 
The  obstructions  here  meant,  being  of  a  moral  kind,  could  only  be  re¬ 
moved  by  reformation  or  repentance  (see  above,  on  v.  1),  or  as  one  of 
the  Greek  commentators  beautifully  phrases  it,  by  gathering  fi  om  the 
surface  of  the  desert  the  thorns  of  passion  and  the  stones  of  sin.  The 
Lord,  not  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  at  least  exclusively,  but  as  in  the  orig¬ 
inal  prophecy,  Jehorah,  the  peculiar  name  of  God  consideied  as  the 
national  and  covenanted  God  of  Israel  (see  Ex.  G,  3),  a  name  represented 
in  the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint  and  of  the  New  Testament  by  the 
phrase  (o  Kvpios)  the  Lord,  denoting  sovereign t}’.  The  second  person 
of  the  Godhead  is.  liowever,  not  excluded,  since  it  is  in  Christ,  not  only 

him  as  an  instrument,  but  in  him  as  a  person,  that  God  reconedes 
the  world  unto  liimself  (2  Cor,  5, 19),  or,  exchanging  apostolic  for 
prophetic  forms,  returns  to  his  forsaken  people.  Straight  may  be  op¬ 
posed  either  to  obliquity  of  course  (as  in  Acts  9,  11),  or  to  unevenness 
of  surface,  which  last  is  the  meaning  in  Isaiah,  as  appears  from  the 
next  verse  (40,  4),  omitted  here  but  introduced  bv  Luke  (3,5),  and  ex¬ 
hibiting  the  wa3's  as  rectified  or  made  straight  (Wiclif,  right)  by  the 
levelling  of  mountains  and  the  filling  up  of  valleys,  a  description  also 

*  It  is  described  by  Diodorus  in  the  case  of  Remiramis,  by  Suetonius  in  that  of 
Caligula,  and  by  Strabo,  Justin,  Plutarch,  and  Josephus,  in  more  general  terms. 

t  See  below,  on  21,  4.  1(1.  27,  U.  34.  3.1. 

X  Compare  the  use  of  the  same  Uebi’ew  verb  in  Gen.  24, 31.  Lev.  14,  3C,  Isai. 
57, 14.  62, 10.  Mai.  3, 1. 


52 


MATTHEW  3,3.4. 


found  in  classical  poetry.*  Paths,  in  Greclc  a  noun  (rpl^ovs)  derived 
from  the  verb  to  and  therefore  strict]}^  meaning  ways  worn 

by  tlie  feet.  In  the  Greek  of  the  Scriptures  it  occurs,  besides  this 
place  and  the  parallels,  only  in  Gen.  49,  17,  1  Sam.  G.  12.  But  the 
corie'>:poiiding  Hebrew  ord  denotes  a  highway  or  an  artificial  cause¬ 
way,  thrown  up  above  the  level  of  the  land  through  which  it  passes. 


4.  And  the  same  John  had  his  raiment  of  camel's 
hair,  and  a  leathern  girdle  about  his  loins  ;  and  his  meat 
was  locusts  and  wild  honey. 

The  same  John  seems  equivalent  in  English  to  the  said  (or  the 
aforesaid)  John;  but  the  literal  translation  is,  and  John  himself 
])erhnp.s  employed  as  a  transition  from  the  prophecy  to  the  fulfilment. 
As  if  he  had  said,  ‘  the  John  thus  described  in  prophecy,  when  he  ac¬ 
tually  came  himself  (or  in  fact),  had  his  dress,’’  &c.  This  last  phrase 
den  4es  more  than  that  he  had  a  dress  of  the  kind  described,  suggest¬ 
ing  the  additional  idea  that  his  dress  was  a  peculiar  or  distinctive 
one.  Paiment  is  in  Greek  a  noun  peculiar  to  the  Hellenistic  dialect, 
but  derived  from  a  verb  used  in  the  classics.  Of  camel’s  hair,  literally, 
fro7n  hairs  of  a  camel,  the  preposition  (utto)  indicating  the  source  and 
the  material.  The  reference  is  not  to  camel’s  skin  with  the  hair,  which 
would  be  too  heavy,  and  has  never  been  in  use  for  clothing,  although 
Clement  of  Rome,  in  his  epistle,  adds  it  to  the  sheepslcins  and  goat¬ 
skins  of  Heb.  11,  37.  Nor  is  the  stuff  meant  camlet,  i.  e.  the  fine  cloth 
made  in  the  east  of  camel’s  hair,  much  less  the  woollen  imitation  of  it 
made  in  Europe,  but  a  coarse  sackcloth  made  of  the  long  shaggy  hair 
of  the  camel,  which  it  sheds  every  year.  Such  cloth  has  always  been 
extensively  used  in  the  east,  both  for  tents  and  clothing,  especially 
among  the  poor,  and  as  a  sign  of  mourning,  being  generally  black  in 
co’our  (Rev.  C,  12).  It  seems  to  have  been  used  as  a  proverbial  des¬ 
ignation  of  the  cheapest  and  coarsest  kind  of  dress.  Thus  Josephus 
says  that  Herod  used  to  threaten  the  ladies  of  his  court,  when  they 
ollended  him,  that  he  would  force  them  to  wear  hair-cloth.  The 
garb  of  John  the  Baptist,  here  described,  was  not  worn  merely  from 
frugality,  or  in  contempt  of  fashionable  finery,  like  that  of  Cato  as 
described  by  Lucan. f  but  in  imitation  of  the  ancient  prophets,  who  are 
commonly  supposed  to  have  been  distinguished  by  a  rough  (or  hairy) 
garment  (Zech.  14,  3),  or  rather  of  Elijah  in  particular,  who  is  de¬ 
scribed  in  the  Old  Testament  (2  Kings  1,  8)  as  an  hairy  man  (Sept. 
dvr]p  bacTud),  or  more  exactly,  a  possessor  (i.  e.  wearer)  of  hair  (mean¬ 
ing  hair-cloth,  as  above).  The  epithet  hairij  is  not  only  as  appro¬ 
priate  to  his  dress  as  to  his  person,  but  its  reference  to  the  former 

* . At  VOS,  qua  venit,  subsidite  montes, 

Et  faciles  curvis  vallibus  este  viaj ! — Ovid. 

t  Hirtam  membra  super  Romani  more  Quiritio  Induxisse  togam. — Phaesal. 
2, 386-7. 


53 


MATTHEW  3,4. 

agrees  better  with  the  mention  of  the  leathern  girdle  which  imme¬ 
diately  follows  it  in  that  case,  as  it  does  in  this.  As  the  words  of 
Zechai  iah  above  cited  are  the  only  intimation  that  the  prophets  were 
distinguishefi  by  an  official  dress,  and  as  Ahaziah,  upon  hearing  the 
desci  iption  above  quoted  (2  Kings  L  8),  appears  to  have  recognized 
it,  not  as  the  prophetical  costume,  but  as  the  dress  of  a  particuli'.r 
prophet,  it  is  on  the  whole  most  likely  that  Elijah  wore  it,  not  merely 
ex  officio  as  a  prophet,  but  for  some  special  reason  growing  out  of  his 
own  prophetic  ministry  as  a  Reprover  and  Reformer  in  the  apostate 
kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  (1  Kings  18,21.  19, 14).  It  may  then  have 
been  a  kind  of  mourning  for  the  sin  and  the  impending  ruin  of  his  people, 
which  is  much  more  likely  than  the  supposition  that  it  indicated  an 
ascetic  life,  of  which  we  find  no  trace  in  the  prophetic  history.  Now 
John  the  Baptist’s  ministry  not  only  boro  a  strong  resemblance  to 
that  of  Elijah,  but  is  expressly  represented  by  the  Angel  who  an¬ 
nounced  his  birth  as  a  continuation  or  renewal  of  it  (Luke  1,  17),  and 
had  been  so  represented  in  the  last  prophetic  utterance  of  the  Old 
Testament  (Mai.  4,  5.  G).  as  expounded  and  applied  b}^  Christ  himself 
(see  below,  on  11,  14.  17, 10-13).  The  dress  of  John  may  therefore  be 
regarded,  like  his  preaching  in  a  literal  desert  (see  above,  on  v.  3),  as 
an  outward  coincidence  intended  to  identify  him  as  the  subject  of  an 
ancient  prophecy  and  the  successor  of  an  ancient  prophet,  while  the 
prophecy  itself  had  a  wider  scope  and  a  more  complete  fulfilment, 
not  in  his  external  habits  merely,  but  in  the  whole  purpose  of  his 
ministry  to  reconcile  the  fathers  and  the  children,  i.  e.  to  bring  back 
the  chosen  people  to  the  spirit  and  the  practice  of  the  old  theocracy, 
so  far  as  this  was  absolutely  necessary  as  a  moral  preparation  for 
Messiah’s  advent.  (Sec  above,  on  v.  1.)  This  view  of  John’s  rela¬ 
tion  to  Elijah  is  by  no  means  inconsistent  with  the  supposition,  that 
his  coarse  dress  and  food  had  also  a  practical  use  as  an  example  to  the 
penitent,  as  well  as  a  symbolical  significance  as  representing  the 
austerity  aud  rigour  of  the  law  in  its  demands  upon  those  who  were 
subjected  to  it.*  The  girdle,  worn  to  bind  the  flowing  oriental  dress 
together,  being  necessary  to  all  active  movement,  is  a  natural  and  com¬ 
mon  figure  both  for  energy  and  preparation.!  But  in  this  case,  as  in  that 
of  Elijah  (2  Kings  1.8),  the  emphasis  is  not  so  much  on  girdle  as  on 
leathern.  The  important  fact  is  not  that  John  the  Baptist  wore  a 
girdle,  which  was  no  doubt  true  of  all  his  neighbours  and  acquain¬ 
tances,  both  male  and  female,  but  that  this  univei'sal  article  of  dress, 
in.stead  of  being  costly  in  material  or  decoration,  was  composed,  not 
even  of  what  we  call  leather,  but  most  probal^ly  of  undressed  hide,  an 
idea  not  so  readily  suggested  by  the  authorized  as  by  the  older  ver¬ 
sions  {of  a  skirt).  Such  a  girdle  was  in  keeping  with  his  shirt  of  hair¬ 
cloth,  and  his  whole  dress  with  the  coarse  and  frugal  fare  described 
in  the  remainder  of  the  verse.  Uis  meat,  not  flesh  or  animal  food, 

*  A  rabbinical  tradition  represents  Elijah  as  arrayed  in  sheepskins,  and  to 
this,  as  the  usual  prophetical  costume,  some  suppose  au  allusion  in  our  Lord’s 
denunciation  of  wolves  in  sheep's  clothing  (see  below,  on  7, 15). 

t  See  2  Sam.  22,40.  Ps.  65,6.  03,1.  Prov.  81,17.  Isai.  45,5.  John  21,  18. 


54 


MATTHEW  3,  4.  5. 


which  is  the  mear.ing  of  the  word  in  modern  English,  bnt  Ms  food  in 
general,  by  which  term  it  is  rendered  twice  (Acts  14, 17.  James  2, 15), 
but  always  elsewhere  meat.  The  change  of  usage  as  to  the  word  is 
remarkably  exemplified  in  the  phrase  meat-offering^  which  is  em¬ 
ployed  by  our  translators  to  describe  precisely  that  kind  of  oblation 
into  which  meat  (in  its  modern  sense)  could  never  enter.*  Locusts,  an 
insect  of  the  grasshopper  family,  exceedingly  destructive  in  the  east, 
but  allowed  to  be  eaten  by  the  law  of  Moses  (Lev.  11, 22),  and  ac¬ 
tually  so  used  among  many  nations,  both  in  earlier  and  later  times. 
From  some  mistaken  notion  as  to  su6h  food,  and  in  strange  oblivion 
of  the  legal  grant  just  cited,  some  of  the  older  writers  tried,  by  arbi¬ 
trary  change  of  reading  or  by  forced  interpretation  of  the  common  text, 
to  change  those  locusts  into  crabs  or  fishes,  wild  pears,  nuts,  cakes,  or 
the  boughs  and  leaves  of  trees.  One  of  the  strangest  grounds  of  this 
gratuitous  perversion  was  that  John  had  not  time  or  means  to  cook  the 
locusts  in  the  desert,  which,  however,  is  a  very  simple  process,  and 
continually  practised  bj^the  Bedouins  and  other  dwellers  in  the  desert. 
Others,  with  more  plausibility,  but  still  without  sufficient  reason  or 
necessity,  explain  loild  honey  to  mean  a  sweet  gum  which  distils  from 
certain  trees  or  shrubs,  and  is  supposed  to  be  so  called  in  a  few  doubt¬ 
ful  passages  of  ancient  writers.  The  necessity  of  all  such  explanations 
is  precluded  by  the  clear  and  frequent  mention,  both  in  Scripture  and 
the  classics,  of  honev,  in  the  strict  sense,  as  produced  by  wild  or  un¬ 
hived  bees,  and  therefore  found  in  trees  and  rocks,  and  situations  still 
moi'C  unexpected. t  It  may  have  been  in  reference  to  these  wild 
spontaneous  products,  rather  than  those  secured  by  human  care  and 
labour,  that  the  Holy  Land  was  said  to  flow  with  milk  and  honey.J 
The  fare  of  John  the  Baptist  here  described  was  not  the  ordinary  diet 
of  the  country,  as  distinguished  from  the  luxury  of  towns  and  cities, 
but  one  of  more  than  usual  simplicity  and  abstinence,  and  although  not 
miraculously  furnished,  yet  resembling  Elijah’s  (1  Kings  17,6.  18,6) 
in  its  difference  from  that  in  ordinary  use.  In  consequence  of  this 
abstemious  mode  of  life,  our  Lord  himself  describes  John  as  neither 
eating  nor  drinhing,  in  comparison  with  his  own  less  rigid  practice 
(see  below,  on  11,18).  That  it  was  not,  even  upon  John’s  part, 
mere  ascetic  rigour,  but  commemorative  and  symbolical  imitation,  is 
apparent  from  the  fact  that  he  does  not  appear  to  have  enforced  this 
mode  of  life  on  others.  Even  the  frequent  fasts  of  his  disciples  seem 
to  have  been  borrowed  from  the  Pharisees  and  not  from  John  (see 
below,  on  9, 14).  ^ 

5.  Then  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea, 
and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan. 

*  See  Lev.  2,1.  5,13.  6,14.  14,10.  Num.  7,13.  15,6.  1  Chr.  21,23. 

t  See  Deut.  32, 13.  Judg.  14,  5.  1  Sam.  14,  25.  Ps.  81,  6. 

j  Ex.  3, 8. 17.  13,  5.  33,  3.  Josephus  also  speaks  of  the  region  about  Jericho 
as  fed  with  honey  (ywpa  ixe\ir6rpo(pos)y  which  would  hardly  be  said  of  that  pro¬ 
duced  by  domesticated  bees. 


55 


MATTHEW  3,  5.  6. 

T^en,  at  the  same  time  that  is  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  context, 
i.  e.  while  John  was  thus  living  and  tlms  preachings  Or  tlie  sense 
may  be,  after  he  had  made  his  first  appearance,  as  described  in  v.  1. 
JFenf  out  (or  fovlK)  from  their  homes  into  the  wilderness.  Jerusalem 
is  put  for  its  population  by  a  natural  and  common  figure  also  used  by 
Cicero.*  All  Judea,  i.  e.  all  the  rest  of  it,  besides  the  capital  and  holy 
cit3\  (Compare  the  frequent  combination,  Judah  and  Jerusalem^  Isai. 
1,  1.  2.  1.  3,  1).  The  country  round  about  Jordan  may  be  either  a 
particular  specification  of  the  general  terms  just  used  (all  Jud^  and 
especially  that  part  about  the  Jordan),  or  an  extension  of  the  previous 
description  (all  Judea  and  those  parts  of  the  other  provinces  which  are 
adjacent  to  the  Jordan),  so  as  to  include  a  part  of  Galilee,  Samaria, 
Perea,  and  Gaulonitis,  all  which  had  their  points  or  lines  of  contact 
with  the  river.  The  phrase  however  is  most  probably  indefinite  and 
popular,  denoting  an  indefinite  but  well-known  region,  not  a  technical 
expression  of  political  or  physical  geograph3^  Some  would  restrict  it 
to  a  particular  district  called  in  the  Old  Tesfament  the  Plain  of  Jordan 
(Gen.  13,  10.  -11.  1  Kings  7,  4G.  2  Chr.  4,  17),  or  to  the  whole  bed  of 
dhat  river,  cither  from  its  source  or  from  its  leaving  lake  Gennosarct  to 
its  entrance  into  the  Dead  Sea,  a  tract  now  called  by  the  inhabitants 
El  Ghor  {the  Valley').  The  all  in  these  two  clauses  is  explained  by 
some  as  a  hyperbole  for  most  or  many,  such  as  they  suppose  to  be  ex¬ 
emplified  in  4,  18.  24.  10,  22.  Mark  1,  37.  Luke  7,  20.  John  12,  32. 
Acts  4,  21,  and  elsewhere.  But  in  all  such  cases  there  is  more  danger 
of  attenuation  than  exaggeration,  and  in  that  before  us  we  have  rea¬ 
son  to  believe  that  the  strong  expressions  of  the  text  were  literally 
true,  or  at  least  that  a,  very  large  proportion  of  the  whole  population 
were  drawn  forth  into  the  wilderness,  by  what  they  had  heard  of  John 
the  Baptist’s  eai  ly  history  and  his  peculiar  mode  of  life,  as  well  as  by 
his  earnest  appeals  to  the  conscience,  which  in  every  age  have  had  a 
strange  fascination,  even  for  those  whom  they  condemn  or  force  to  sit 
in  judgment  on  themselves.  From  all  this  it  is  probable  that  John 
for  some  time,  the  precise  length  of  which  cannot  now  be  determined, 
was  an  object  of  general  curiosit3’',  and  even  universally  acknowledged 
as  a  messenger  from  God.  (See  below,  on  11,  7-15.  21,  23-27.) 

6.  And  were  baptized  of  liim  in  Jordan,  confessing 
tneir  sins. 

The  sentence  is  continued,  without  interruption  or  a  change  of  sub¬ 
ject,  from  the  verse  preceding,  they  went  out  and  were  baptized.  The 
imperfect  tense  of  both  verbs  shows  that  this  concourse  was  not  merely 
once  for  all,  on  some  particular  occasion,  but  repeated  and  continued 
for  a  length  of  time  not  hero  determined  nor  recorded  elsewhere.  The 
act  or  rite  here  mentioned  is  the  one  from  which  John  derived  his  title 
Baptist  or  Baptizer  (see  above,  on  v.  1).  Baptism  is  neither  washing 
nor  immersion  simply,  but  symbolical  or  ceremonial  washing,  such  as 

*  Mihi  ipsa  Roma  obviam  procedere  visa  est. — Oratio  in  Pisonem. 


66 


MAT-TIIEW  3,6. 


tl\c  i\ro<!aic  law  proscribed,  ns  a  sign  of  n^'ornl  renovation,  and  connected 
with  the  sacrificial  liics  of  expiation,  to  denolc  the  int mate  connec¬ 
tion  between  atonement  and  sanctification,  it  was  from  these  fanii  iar 
and  significant  ablutions  that  John’s  baptism  was  derived,"  and  not 
from  the  practice  of  baptizing  proselytes,  the  antiquity,  o(,.  which,  as  a 
distinct  rite,  is  disputed,  since  it  is  not  mentioned’  by^ Philo  or  Jose¬ 
phus,  and  first  appears  in  the  Gemara  or  later  portiOn'of  the, Babylo¬ 
nish  Talmud.  If  really  as  ancient  as  tiie  time  of  Christ,  it  was  no 
doubt  one  of  the  traditional  additions  to  the  law  made  by  the  Phari¬ 
sees,  like  the  tithing  of  garden-herbs  and  the  baptism  of  beds  and  cups. 
(See  below,  on  23,  23,  and  compare  Mark  7,  4.)  Tiie  extiavagant  im¬ 
portance  afterwards  attached  to  this  lite  in  the  case  of  proselytes,  so 
as  even  to  make  it  more  essential  than  circumcision  itself,  and  neces¬ 
sary  to  the  vrdidity  and  value  of  that  ordinance,  confirms  the  view  just 
taken  of  its  origin.  The  stress  laid  by  the  same  traditional  authori¬ 
ties  on  total  immersion  as  essential  to  this  baptism  savours  also  of  the 
Oral  law,  and  may  perhaps  have  some  connection  with  a  similar  con¬ 
fusion  of  the  essence  and  the  mode  in  Christian  baptisms.  In  the 
written  law  of  Moses,  on  the  other  hand,  as  in  the  primitive  or  apos¬ 
tolic  practice  of  the  Christian  church,  the  essence  of  symbolical  or 
ceremonial  washing  was  the  application  of  the  purifying  element. 
Some  modern  writers  have  carried  this  perversion  so  far  as  to  deny  the 
reference  to  cleansing  altogether,  and  to  make  the  dipping  or  immer¬ 
sion  every  thing,  as  symbolizing  burying,  death,  depravity,  or  condem¬ 
nation.  There  is  far  more  trutli,  though  not  nnmixed  with  fancy,  in 
another  modern  notion,  tliat  John  first  excommunicated  the  wliolc 
people  as  unclean  before  God,  and  then  on  their  profession  of  )-ej)entaMCC 
purified  tliern  by  his  baptism.  We  may  at  least  be  certain  that  this  rite 
was  recognized  by  those  who  underwent  it  as  a  new  foim  or  modifica¬ 
tion  of  the  pnrif3  ing  rites  with  which  thej^  we^'c  familial-,  as  appointed 
symbols  of  repentance  and  legeneration.  As  to  the  mode,  the  very 
doubt  wliich  overhangs  it  .shows  it  to  he  unessential,  and  the  doubt  it¬ 
self  does  not  admit  of  an  etvmoloizical  .solution.  Even  a  dmittimi-  that 
the  word  baptize  oriiiinaliy  means  to  dip  or  plunge  and  that  the  first 
converts  were  in  fact  immensed— both  wliicli  arc  doubtful  and  disputed 
points — it  no  more  follows  that  this  mode  of  washing  was  e.sscntial  to 
the  rite,  than  that  every  elder  must  he  an  old  man.  or  that  the  Lord’s 
supper  can  be  lawfully  administered  onl}'-  in  the  evening.  The  river 
Jordan  is  the  onW  considerable  stream  of  Palestine,  rising  near  the 
base  of  Mount  Hermon,  flowing  southward  in  a  double  bed  or  valley 
with  a  deep  and  rapid  current,  through  the  lakes  of  Merom  and  Tiberias, 
into  the  Dead  Sea.  Ptecent  surveys  and  measurements  have  shown 
that  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  with  its  lakes,  is  much  below  the  level 
of  tlie  Mediterranean.  This  famous  river  firmed  the  eastern  limit  of 
the  province  of  Judea,  and  was  probably  the  nearest  water  to  the  des¬ 
ert  tract  where  John  had  made  his  first  appearance.  It  was  on  ac¬ 
count  of  this  contiguity,  and  for  the  accommodation  of  the  crowds  at¬ 
tending  him  (John  3,  23),  that  John  baptized  there,  and  not  for  the 
convenience  of  immersion.  They  submitted  to  John’s  baptism,  not 


MATTHEW  3,  6.  7. 


57 


as  an  unmeaning  form,  but  at  the  snme  time  confessing  their  sins,  the 
Greek  verb  being  an  intensive  compound,  which  denotes  the  act  of 
free  and  full  confession  or  acknowledgment.  This,  which  is  prescribed 
as  a  condition,  although  not  a  meritorious  ground  of  pardon  (Prov. 
28,  13.  1  John  1,  9),  and  was  theieforc  required  even  under  the  Mo¬ 
saic  law  (Lev.  5,  5.  16,  21.  26,  40.  Num.  5,  7),  is  at  the  same  time  one 
of  the  best  tokens  of  repentance.  The  confession  in  the  case  before 
us,  was  neither  public  nor  auricular,  but  personal  and  private. 
Whether  it  was  general  or  pai-ticular,  and  uniform  oi-  various  in  dif¬ 
ferent  cases,  are  questions  which  we  have  no  means  of  certainly  deter¬ 
mining.  As  John’s  whole  ministiy  was  only  introductory  to  that  of 
Christ,  and  his  baptism  not  immediately  effectual,  but  only  for  (or 
with  a  view  to)  the  remission  of  sins,  as  Mark  (1,  4)  and  Luke  (3,  3)  ex¬ 
press  it,  it  is  possible,  though  not  to  be  insisted  on  as  certain,  tliat  the 
confession  here  referred  to  was  a  genei-al  acknowledgment  of  personal 
and  national  defection  from  the  principles  and  practice  of  the  old  econ¬ 
omy.  to  which  the  people  must  be  brought  back,  as  an  indispensable 
condition  or  prerequisite  of  the  IMessiah’s  advent.  See  above,  on  v. 
4.  and  compare  Mai.  4,  5.  6  (in  the  Hebrew  text  3,  23.  24),  where  this 
change  is  ascribed  to  the  instrumental  agency  of  Elijah,  i.  c.  John 
himself  (sec  below,  on  17,  10-13). 

7.  But  when  he  saw  many  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sad- 
ducees  come  to  his  baptism,  he  said  unto  them,  0  genera¬ 
tion  of  vipers,  who  hath  warned  you  to  dee  from  the 
wrath  to  come  ? 

AVe  learn  from  this  verse,  that  the  concourse  to  John’s  ministry  and 
baptism  was  not  confined  to  either  of  the  great  religious  sects,  or  rather 
schools,  into  which  the  Jewish  church  was  then  divided  ;  and  that  John 
reproved  and  warned  them  both  with  impartial  faithfulness,  without 
respect  of  persons  or  of  parties.  The  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  differed, 
not  only  as  to  certain  doctrines  and  the  observance  of  the  oral  law,  but 
also  in  their  national  and  patriotic  feelings,  and  their  disposition  to 
assimilation  with  the  Gentiles.  The  name  Pharisee.^  though  othci-wise 
ex[)lained  by  some,  most  probably  means  Separatist.^  not  in  the  modern 
sense  of  schismatic.,  nor  in  allusion  to  mere  personal  austerity  and  strict¬ 
ness,  as  distinguishing  a  few  ascetics  from  the  masses  of  the  people,  luit 
rather  as  defining  the  position  which  they  occupied  in  reference  to  other 
nations,  by  insisting  upon  every  thing  peculiar  and  distinctive,  and  af¬ 
fecting  even  to  exaggerate  the  difference  between  the  Gentiles  and 
themselves.  This,  which  was  at  first,  i.  c.  after  the  return  from  exile, 
when  these  divisions  are  first  traceable  in  history,  and  even  later,  under 
the  first  Maccabees  or  Ilasmonean  princes,  the  true  national  and  theo¬ 
cratic  spirit,  by  degrees  became  corrupt,  losing  sight  of  the  great  end  for 
which  the  old  economy  existed,  and  worshipping  the  law,  not  only  that 
of  Moses,  but  its  traditional  accretions  called  the  Oral  Law,  as  a  system 
to  bo  valued  for  its  own  sake,  and  designed  to  be  perpetual.  The  opposi- 
30 


58 


MATTHEW  3,7. 


tion  to  this  school  or  party  arose  chiefly  from  the  Sadducees,  a  name  of 
doubtful  origin,  derived  by  the  early  Christian  writers  from  the  Hebrew 
word  for  righteous  but  by  the  Jewish  books  from  a  proper  name 

of  kindred  origin  Zadolc^  said  to  be  that  of  the  original  founder. 

At  first,  they  seem  to  have  objected  merely  to  the  narrow  nationality  of 
their  opponents,  and  to  have  aimed  at  smoothing  down,  as  far  as  possi¬ 
ble  without  abandoning  their  own  religion,  the  points  of  difference  be¬ 
tween  Jews  and  Gentiles,  so  as  to  reconcile  the  faith  of  Moses  with  the 
Greek  philosophy  and  civilization,  and  renouncing  or  suppressing  what¬ 
ever  appeared  most  olfcnsive  or  absurd  to  the  cultivated  heathen.  But 
this  dangerous  process  of  assimilation  could  not  be  carried  far  without 
rejecting  matters  more  essential ;  and  we  find  accordingly,  that  the 
Sailducees,  before  the  time  of  our  Lord’s  public  ministry,  had  abjured, 
not  only  the  Oral  Law  or  Pharisaical  tradition,  but  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  and  of  separate  or  disembodied  spirits,  no  doubt  on  the 
pretext  of  their  not  being  expressly  taught  in  the  Old  Testament.* 
This  liberal  or  latitudinarian  party  was  composed,  according  to  Jo¬ 
sephus,  of  persons  in  the  more  relined  and  educated  classes,  while  the 
Pharisees  included  the  great  body  of  the  people.  For  between  these 
schools  or  parties  the  whole  nation  was  divided,  unless  we  except  a 
third,  called  by  Josephus  the  Essenes,  and  described  as  an  ascetic  class, 
inhabiting  the  desert  near  the  Dead  Sea,  and  leading  a  life  not  unlike 
that  of  the  later  Christian  monks.  The  absence  of  all  reference  to  this 
class  in  the  Gospels  is  explained  by  some,  upon  the  ground  that  they 
were  merged  in  the  vast  multitude  of  those  who  followed  John  the 
Baptist  and  our  Lord  himself.  But  as  they  are  not  mentioned  here 
and  elsewhere,  where  the  other  schools  and  parties  are  referred  to,  it  is 
probable  that  what  Josephus  tells  us  of  the  Essenes  is  only  true  of  a 
temporary  association,  growing  out  of  transitory  local  causes,  and  with¬ 
out  a  permanent  distinctive  character,  like  that  of  the  two  great  bodies 
named  by  Matthew  in  the  verse  before  us.  If  the  Essenes,  however, 
had  a  permanent  and  organized  existence,  they  were  no  doubt  entitled 
to  the  appellation  of  a  sect^  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  expression,  as 
implying  a  distinct  oi’ganization  and  a  separate  worship.  But  for  that 
very  reason  it  is  not  at  all  appropriate,  though  commonly  applied,  to 
the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  who,  notwithstanding  their  diversities  of 
doctrine  and  of  practice,  were  professors  of  the  same  faith,  and,  so  far 
as  now  appears,  joined  in  the  same  worship.  Their  mutual  relation 
may  be  therefore  more  exactly  represented  by  the  word  schools  or  'par¬ 
ties^  the  one  suggesting  dificrence  of  doctrine,  and  the  other  that  of 
discipline  or  practice.  The  mutual  relation  of  these  parties  in  the 
Jewish  church  and  state  (which  were  inseparably  blended)  was  anal¬ 
ogous  to  that  of  Whigs  and  Tories,  or  of  High  and  Low  Church,  for  the 
last  two  hundred  years,  in  England ;  each  obtaining  the  ascendancy 
in  turn,  or  at  the  same  time  sharing  it  between  them.  Such  vicissi¬ 
tudes  and  rivalries  may  be  distinctly  traced  in  the  history  of  the  llas- 


*  See  below,  on  22,  23,  and  compare  Acts  23,  8.  1  Cor.  15, 12. 


MATTHEW  3,7. 


69 


monean  dynasty  before  the  Homan  conquest,  as  for  instance  in  the 
fact,  that  Alexander  Jannseus  charged  his  widow  on  his  death-bed,  as 
the  guardian  of  her  sons  and  regent  during  their  minoritjq  to  transfer 
her  political  connections  from  the  Sadducees,  with  whom  he  had  him¬ 
self  been  acting,  to  the  Pharisees,  as  being  not  only  the  more  numerous 
and  powerful,  but  also  the  more  national  and  patriotic  party.  From  all 
these  facts  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  are  here 
named,  not  as  select  classes,  large  or  small,  distinct  from  the  body  of 
the  people,  but  as  the  two  great  schools  or  parties,  into  which  that 
body  was  itself  divided,  so  that  many  refers  rather  to  the  aggregate 
number,  w^hich  is  there  described  by  its  component  parts.  As  if  he  had 
said,  ‘  seeing  a  great  multitude,  consisting  both  of  Pharisees  and  Sad¬ 
ducees.’  From  this  it  also  follows,  that  when  Luke  (3,  7)  represents 
John  as  uttering  the  same  words  to  the  crowds  or  multitudes  (rois 
6\\oti),  there  is  no  mistake  in  either  statement,  nor  the  least  incon¬ 
sistency  between  them,  nor  the  slightest  need  of  forced  constructions, 
as,  for  instance,  that  he  spoke  to  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  before 
the  people,  or  at  the  former  although  to  the  latter,  hut  a  twofold  yet 
harmonious  statement  of  the  simple  fact,  that  the  crowds  wdio  came  out 
W’ere  both  Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  To  his  haptism,  i.  e.  both  to  wit¬ 
ness  and  receive  it,  not  merely  to  the  place  of  its  administration.  The 
sense  of  opposition  or  hostility  {against  his  haptism)  is  at  variance  both 
with  usage  and  the  context.  To  both  these  parties,  so  unlike  and  even 
opposite  in  character  and  spirit,  and  little  accustomed  to  be  thus  con¬ 
founded,  John  addressed  himself  in  terms  of  undistinguishing  severity. 
Generation  is  in  Greek  a  plural,  and  is  so  translated  by  Wiclif  and  in 
the  Geneva  Bible,  both  of  w^hich  have  generaciouns.  The  plural  may 
have  reference  either  to  variety  of  species  or  to  multitude  of  individuals. 
The  word  itself  denotes  any  product,  whether  animal  (as  here)  or  vege¬ 
table  (as  in  26.  29,  below,  and  in  Luke  12, 18).  It  is  commonly  trans¬ 
lated  fruity  which  has  the  same  double  use  in  English.  (Besides  the 
passages  just  cited,  see  Mark  14,  25.  Luke  3,  7.  22, 18.  2  Cor.  9, 10.) 
Generation  occurs  only  here  and  in  the  parallels  (12,  34.  23,  33.  Luke 
3,  7).  The  Hhemish  version  has  a  more  poetical  expression,  but  equiva¬ 
lent  in  import,  ripers'  hrood.,  i.  e.  offspring  or  progeny  of  vipers.  As  a 
mere  expression  of  abhorrence  or  contempt,  this  language  would  be  un¬ 
accountable,  if  not  unworthy  of  the  man  who  used  it.  If  the  notion 
thus  convej^ed  were  that  of  craft  or  cunning,  the  form  would  still  be 
a  surprising  one.  The  only  satisfactory  solution  is  afforded  by  assum¬ 
ing  an  allusion  to  the  protevangelium  or  first  promise  of  a  Saviour  after 
the  Fall  (see  Gen.  3, 15),  in  which  the  seed  of  the  woman^  i.  e.  Christ 
and  his  people,  are  contrasted  with  the  seed  of  the  serpent.,  or  the  devil 
and  his  followers,  both  men  and  demons,  throughout  all  ages,  as  com¬ 
posing  two  antagonistic  powers,  which  were  to  be  long  at  war,  with 
various  fluctuations  and  vicissitudes  of  fortune,  including  temporary 
partial  advantages  on  one  side,  but  an  ultimate  and  total  triumph  on 
the  other.  This  prediction  gives  complexion  to  all  later  history,  which 
is  really  the  record  of  its  gradual  fulfilment.  This  war  of  ages  was 
now  approaching  to  its  crisis  or  catastrophe.  The  heads  of  the  two 


£0  MATTHEW  3,7.8. 

parties  xrore  about  to  be  brought  into  personal  colli.sfon*  Tn  the 
mean  time  the  foi-erunner  of  the  conqueror  denounce.^  the  great  body 
of  the  people  who  came  forth  to  hear  liini.  and  especially  the  leaders 
of  the  two  great  parties  into  which  they  were  divided,  as  belonging  to 
the  hostile  army.  The  mere  change  of  expression,  from  seed  of  the 
serpent  to  brood  of  ripers^  is  entirely  insufficient  to  outweigh  the  his¬ 
torical  and  other  arguments  in  favour  of  tiiis  explanation,  which  con¬ 
verts  a  harsh  and  almost  passionate  vituperation  into  a  solemn  and  im¬ 
pressive  recollection  of  a  prophec}’’  coeval  with  the  fall  of  man  and 
interwoven  with  the  whole  course  of  his  subsequent  experience.  Who 
hath  warned  you^  Qx  retaining  the  strict  sense  of  the  who  did 

warn  you,  or  who  warned  you,  i.  e.  just  now.  or  before  you  came  out 
hither?  The  Greek  verb,  elsewhere  rendered  forewarn  (Luke  12,  5), 
shew  (Luke  0,47.  Acts  9, 10.  20,  35),  originally  means  to  show  secietly 
or  partially,  both  which  ideas  are  sugge.sted  by  the  pai'ticle  (un6)  with 
which  it  is  compounded,  and  may  therefore  be  expressed  b}*  our 
phrase,  to  give  a  glimpse  of  any  thing.  Here  (as  in  some  of  the  pas¬ 
sages  just  cited)  it  denotes  a  slight  intimation  or  suggestion,  as  distin¬ 
guished  from  a  full  diselosure.  ‘  Who  has  given  you  a  hint  of  the  im- 
l-ending  danger?'  The  infinitive,  which  lollows  may  be  variously 
construed,  as  denoting  either  the  necessity  of  flight  or  possibility  of 
rescue.  ‘  "Who  has  shown  you  that  you  must  flee?’  ‘Who  has 
shown  you  that  you  can  escape?’  In  either  case,  the  words  express 
surprbe;  on  the  former  suppo.sition,  at  their  having  been  alarmed  ;  on 
the  latter,  at  their  venturing  to  hope.  The  first  is  probably  the  natural 
impression  made  on  most  unbiassed  readers,  though  the  other  fs  pre¬ 
ferred  by  some  interpreters,  and  one  even  understands  the  words  to 
mean,  that  if  they  had  been  warned,  they  would  no  doubt  have  fled. 
The  wrath,  i.  e.  the  manifestation  of  God’s  anger  against  sin  and  his 
determination  to  punish  it.f  To  come,  in  Greek  an  active  participle, 
coming,  or  about  to  be,  the  verb  denoting  mere  futurity  and  having  no 
equivalent  in  English  (see  above,  on  2, 13).  The  corning  wrath  is  an 
expression  elsewhere  used  by  Paul  (1  Thess.  1,  10),  and  in  the  same 
sense,  namely  that  of  future  and  impending  judgments,  without  speci¬ 
fication  of  their  form  or  nature. 

8.  Bring  forth  therefore  fruits  meet  for  repentance  : 

Bring  forth,  literally,  make,  i.  e.  produce  or  bear  (Rhcm.  yield). 
The  same  use  of  the  verb  occurs  in  Gen.  1,  11,  and  7,  17.  18.  21,  43 
below.  Fruits^  or,  according  to  the  cviiies,  fruit,  in  the  singular  num¬ 
ber,  but  without  a  change  of  meaning.  Meet,  the  word  so  rendered 
Acts  26,  20.  1  Cor.  16,  4.  2  Th.  1,  3,  and  due  {reward)  in  Luke  23, 
41,  but  usually  worthy,  which  would  have  been  better  here.  Fruits 
worthy  of  repentance,  i.  e.  such  effects  as  it  may  justly  be  expected  to 

.  tr 

Bee  below,  on  4, 1,  and  compare  John  12, 31.  14,  80.  16,  11. 

t  Lev.  10,  6.  Num.  1,  53.  Dent.  0,7.  Josh.  0,  20.  2  Kings  23,  26.  1  Chr  27,  24. 
2Chr.  19, 2.  Ezra  5, 12.  Neh.  13,18.  Job  21, 20.  Isai.  54,8.  Jer.  21,5,  Hab.  3, 2. 
Zech.  7,  2.  Rom.  2,5.  Eph.  2,3.  1  Th.  5,  9.  Rev.  6, 16. 


MATTHEW  3,8.9. 


61 


prorlucc.  The  margin  of  the  English  Bible  has  amwerahle  to  amend- 
ment  of  life.  The  Peshito,  or  old  Syriac,  has  conzersion.  Therefore^ 
because  you  have  been  warned,  or  because  you  have  come  forth  to  be 
baptized,  professing  your  repentance,  winch  includes  at  least  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  reformation,  act  accordingly.  As  this  is  not  a  continuation  of 
the  figure  in  v.  7  {generation  of  vipers),  but  an  introduction  to  the 
one  in  v.  9  {trees)  f fruit  is  to  be  taken  in  a  vegetable  not  an  animal 
sense,  though  appropriate  to  both  (see  above,  on  v.  7),  and  therefore 
furnishing  a  natural  transition  from  the  one  to  tlie  other. 

9.  And  tliink  not  to  say  within  /ourselves,  We  have 
Abraham  to  (our)  father  ;  for  I  say  unto  you,  that  God 
is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  children  unto  Abra¬ 
ham. 

Think  not  to  say  is  explained  by  some  as  a  mere  pleonasm,  mean¬ 
ing  nothing  more  than  say  not,  as  the  same  verb  used  in  Mark  10,  42, 
is  omitted  in  the  parallel  pas.sage  (20,  25  below).  Others  run  into  the 
opposite  extreme  of  making  it  mean  wish  (Vulg.  ne  velitis),  legin 
{Lni\\Qv),  presume  (Geneva),  (Rhernish),  none  of  which  ideas 

is  suggested  by  the  Greek  verb.  It  simply  means,  do  not  even  think 
of  saying,  as  expressed  by  Tyndale’s  paraphrastic  version  {see  that  ye 
once  think  not  to  say),  and  a  little  diffei’ently  in  Cranmer’s  {be  not  of 
such  mind  that  ye  would  say).  The  act  prohibited  is  not  simpl}*  that 
of  speaking,  but  of  thinking  or  intending  so  to  speak.  In  yourselves, 
or  as  it  is  expressed  in  Hebrew,  in  your  hearts  (see  Ps.  4,  C.  10,  6. 
14,  1),  i.  e.  secretly  and  mentally,  not  vocally  or  audibly,  implying  that 
they  might  be  disposed  to  think,  what  they  would  not  care  to  utter 
upon  this  occasion.  {As  a)  father,  founder,  or  progenitor,  we  have 
Abraham,  a  proud  boast  afterwards  expressly  uttered  by  the  Jews  in 
oppo.sition  to  our  Lord  himself  (See  John  8,  33.  37.  39).  What  was 
then  denied  by  him,  and  by  John  the  Baptist  in  the  case  before  us, 
was  not  the  fact  of  their  descent  from  Abraham,  which  was  notoriously 
true,  but  their  reliance  upon  that  fact,  as  securing  the  divine  favour, 
iiTcspective  of  their  character  and  conduct.  This  arrogant  and  im¬ 
pious  reliance,  which  was  secretly  or  openly  cherished  by  the  Jews 
of  that  day,  found  expression  afterwards  in  maxims,  some  of  which 
are  still  pre-crved  in  the  rabbinical  tradition,  for  example  that  of  the 
'Bereshith  Rabbah,  that  Abraham  sits  at  the  gate  of  hell,  and  suffers 
•no  one  of  his  circumcised  descendants  to  go  down  there.  For  assigns 
•a  reason  why  they  should  not  entertain  this  national  hereditary  trust, 
viz.,  because  it  presupposed  that  God  was  bound  to  that  one  race  as 
his  chosen  people,  and  could  not,  if  he  would,  reject  them.  In  oppo¬ 
sition  to  this  wicked  and  absurd  illusion  he  assures  them,  in  a  tone 
almost  ironical,  that  if  they  perished,  God  was  able  to  supply  their 
place,  and  that  from  the  most  unpromising  and  unexpected  quarters. 
6^’ (out  of,  from  among)  these  stones, -not  a  figure  for  the  Gentiles  as 
worshippers  of  stocks  and  stones  j  nor  in  allusion  to  the  monumental 


62 


MATTHEW  3,9.10. 


stones  of  Gilgal ;  but  a  simple  designation  of  the  loose  stcmes  lying 
on  the  surface  of  the  ground,  to  which  the  Baptist  may  have  pointed 
as  he  spoke.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing  an  allusion  to  the  stony 
soil  of  the  Arabian  desert,  from  which  one  part  of  it  derives  its  name 
{Arabia  Petroea)^  as  wilderness  does  not  necessarily  denote  a  barren 
Waste  (see  above,  on  v.  1).  The  expression  would  be  natural  in  any 
situation  where  loose  stones  happened  to  be  lying  around.  They  are 
mentioned  at  all  as  the  least  obvious  and  likely  source  of  such  suppl}^, 
and  therefore  necessarily  implying  an  immediate  divine  agency  in  its 
production.  The  same  idea  might  have  been  expressed  in  general 
tenn.s,  but  with  far  less,  emphasis,  by  saying,  Mf  all  the  natural  de¬ 
scendants  of  the  Patriarch  were  swept  away,  God  could  supply  their 
place  at  once  from  any  quarter  even  the  least  promising.’*  There  is  a 
possible  though  not  a  necessary  reference  to  Isai.  51,  1.  It  matters 
little  as  to  John’s  essential  meaning,  whether  children  to  (or  for) 
Abraham  be  understood  of  natural  or  spiritual  offspring.  If  the 
former,  the  assertion  is,  that  God  could  easil}'  renew  the  Jewish  race, 
in  case  of  its  perdition ;  if  the  other,  that  he  could  as  easily  substitute 
a  better.  On  either  supposition,  the  vocation  of  the  Gentiles,  although 
not  expressly  represented  by  the  stones,  is  tacitly  implied  as  possible. 
Raise  up.  or  retaining  the  original  import  of  the  (Ireek  verb  (see  above, 
on  2,  13.  14.  20,  21)  arouse^  awaken  from  inanimate  existence  into 
life.f  I  say  %into  you.^  with  emphasis  on  both  pronouns,  as  in  5,  28 
below,  and  often  elsewhere.  ‘  Whatever  j'ou  may  say  to  me  or  to 
3’onrselves  about  3mur  proud  prerogatives  as  natural  descendants  of  the 
faithful  Abraham,  the  Friend  of  God,  I  tell  you  in  return  that  God 
has  no  need  of  3'our  services,  but  with  the  same  ease  that  he  made  3mu 
or  Abraham  or  Adam,  can  convert  the  very  stones  beneath  your  feet 
into  worthier  sons  of  Abraham  than  3’ou  are.’ 

10,  And  now  also  the  axe  is  laid  unto  the  root  of  the 
trees  ;  therefore  every  tree  which  hringeth  not  forth  good 
fruit  is  hewn  down,  and  thrown  into  the  fire. 

And  now  also,  not  at  some  period  remotely  or  indefinitely  future, 
blit  already.^  even  while  I  speak,  the  judgment  is  impending.^  The 
axe^  which  in  Homer  alwa3'S  means  a  battle-axe,  but  in  the  later  clas¬ 
sics,  as  with  us,  an  instrument  for  felling  trees,  is  here  a  figure  for  di¬ 
vine  judgments,  possibly  suggested  by  the  reference  to  fruit  in  the 
pi-cceding  verse.  Is  laid,  literally  liesj  is  lying,  as  the  original  verb  is 
a  deponent  one.  The  passive  form,  employed  in  the  translation,  seems 
to  mean  that  some  one  is  now  laying  (or  applying)  it  to  the  tree,  i.  e. 
actually  felling  it ;  whereas  the  neuter  form  of  the  original  may  possi- 

*  For  a  similar  strong  figure,  very  differently  applied  by  Christ  himself,  see 
Luke  19,  40. 

t  Compare  the  application  of  the  verb  raise  up  to  human  generation  in  Gen. 
S8,  8.  and  in  22,  24  below. 

X  Rut  also,  or  but  even  (Se  kuI)  is  a  favorite  combination  of  Luke’s  (3, 9.  12. 14. 
8,  36.  16,1.  18,  1.  9.16.  23,38. 


bly  have  been  intended  to  convey  the  idea  of  its  lying  there  as  yet  in¬ 
active,  in  itnmediate  i)roxiniity  (at,  close  to,  np6s)  "and  ready  to  be 
used  at  any  moment.  This  is  indeed  all  that  the  words  necessarily 
denote,  although  more  may  be  implied  or  suggested  by  the  context. 
Upon  this  point  depends  another  question  as  to  the  precise  sense  of  the 
root^  which  may  either  mean  the  bottom  of  the  tree,  at  which  the  axe 
is  lying  in  readiness  for  future  use,  or  the  radical  and  vital  portion  of 
the  tree,  to  which  it  is  already  actively  applied,  with  a  view  to  its 
complete  excision,  or  as  that  idea  is  expressed  in  prophecy,  with  I’efer- 
ence  to  this  very  period  and  these  very  judgments,  so  as  to  leave  nei¬ 
ther  root  nor  branch  (Mai.  4.  1.  Hebrew  text,  3,  19).  The  essential 
meaning,  upon  either  supposition,  is  that  of  imminent  complete  de¬ 
struction.  The  combination  of  the  singular  and  plural  (root  and  trees) 
may  have  no  separate  significance,  or  may  specifically  signify  the  com¬ 
mon  root  of  all  the  trees,  with  reference  perhaps  to  the  national  de¬ 
pendence  or  descent  from  Abraham,  as  cherished  by  his  individual  de¬ 
scendants.  The  trees  of  this  verse,  corresponding  to  the  fruits  of  that 
before  it,  must  of  course  denote  those  from  whom  fruit  was  expected 
and  required,  namely,  those  to  whom  John  the  Baptist  was  now  speak¬ 
ing,  the  crowds  who  came  forth  to  his  baptism  and  consisted  both  of 
Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  Therefore^  because  the  axe  is  laid  there  for 
the  very  purpose.  Bringing  forth,  literall}’’,  mahing.,  i.  e.  yielding  or 
producing,  as  in  v.  8.  Good  fruif  there  described  as  fruit  meet  for 
(answerable  to,  or  worthy  of)  repentance.,  but  here  by  its  intrinsic 
quality  as  good,  both  in  the  sense  of  right  or  acceptable  to  God,  and 
that  of  salutary,  useful,  to  the  doer  and  to  others.  Is  cut  dow7i,  not 
is  commonly  or  generally  cut  down,  as  a  matter  of  course,  which  is 
forbidden  by  the  preceding  therefore,  but  now,  in  this  case,  upon  this 
occasion,  at  this  time,  or  as  it  might  be  expressed  in  the  English  of  the 
present  day,  is  heing  cut  down,  as  something  actually  passing,  accord¬ 
ing  to  one  sense  of  the  verb  lies,  as  explained  above ;  but  if  the  other 
be  preferred,  the  present  may  be  used  to  represent  a  certain  and  prox¬ 
imate  futurity  (is  cut  down,  i.  e.  sure  and  just  about  to  be  so).  Hewn 
down,  so  translated  in  the  parallel  passage  (Luke  3,  9)  and  in  7,  19 
below,  but  twice  cut  down  (Luke  13,  7.  9),  and  thrice  cut  off  (18,  8. 
Korn.  11,  22.  2  Cor.  11,  12),  and  once  hindered  (1  Pet.  3,  7),  means 
strictly  cut  out,  and  is  so  translated  in  a  single  instance  (Rom.  11,  24). 
It  is  here  used  to  denote,  not  the  mere  felling,  but  the  complete  exci¬ 
sion  of  the  tree,  i.  e.  its  being  cut  up  by  the  root.  (See  below,  on  13, 
29.  15,  13,  and  compare  Luke  17,  6.  Jude  12,  in  all  which  places  the 
idea  of  eradication  is  expressed,  but  without  that  of  cutting).  Is  cast 
(or  thrown),  not  in  general,  but  now,  the  present  having  the  same 
sense  as  in  the  verb  immediately  preceding,  rendered  more  emphatic, 
in  the  Greek,  by  its  position  at  the  end  of  the  whole  sentence  (into  f  re 
is  cast).  Into  f  re,  (not  the  fire),  an  indefinite  description  of  the  cle¬ 
ment  made  use  of  to  consume  the  tree,  and  representing,  as  a  figure, 
the  wrath  of  God,  already  mentioned  (in  v.  7),  or  its  ruinous  effect, 
upon  the  unforgiven  sinner  (compare  Ileb.  12,  29). 


C4 


MATTHEW  3,11. 


11.  I  indeed  baptize  3'OU  with  water  unto  repentance  : 
but  lie  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose 
shoes  I  am  not  worth}^  to  bear;  he  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  (with)  fire. 

But  though  John  uttered  these  severe  denunciations,  it  was  not  in 
his  own  name,  or  by  his  own  authority.  He  was  only  a  forerunner, 
not  a  principal.  Tlie  very  rite  which  he  administered  was  only  em¬ 
blematical  of  something  to  be  actually  done  by  his  superior,  between 
whom  and  himself  there  was  a  greater  disparity  tlian  that  between  a 
master  and  his  meanest  slave.  A  contrast  or  antithesis  is  indicated  by 
the  very  structure  of  the  sentence,  which  is  balanced,  in  the  usual 
Greek  manner,  by  the  corresponding  particles,  indeed  Gtr)  and  hut 
(Sf),  equivalent,  when  thus  combine  !,  to  our  expressions,  ‘  on  the  one 
hand  and  the  other.’  The  first  introduces  a  description  of  himself 
and  his  own  ministry,  the  second  that  of  his  superior  or  principal. 
Indeed^  or  it  is  true,  a  sort  of  concession  or  acknowledgment  that  they 
were  right  in  thinking  him  a  messenger  from  God,  commissioned  to 
baptize  with  water,  literally,  in  icater,  as  the  clement  or  fluid,  which 
no  more  implies  immersion  than  our  common  phrases  to  rinse  or  wash 
in  water.  But  though  both  were  to  baptize,  it  was  in  a  manner  and 
with  an  effect  immeasurably  different,  a  difference  corresponding  to 
the  infinite  disparity  between  them  as  to  rank  and  nature.  The  sum 
of  what  is  here  said  is,  that  John’s  whole  ministry  was  relative,  pro¬ 
spective,  and  preparatory ;  that  he  was  not  a  principal  but  a  depend¬ 
ent  ;  further  removed  from  his  superior  in  rank  than  the  humblest 
domestic  fi  om  his  master ;  and  that  the  same  disparity  existed  between 
the  ministry  and  acts  of  the  two  parties.  John  did  indeed  bap¬ 
tize  them  for  (or  with  a  view  to)  repentance;  but  even  this  he  only 
did  as  a  forerunner.  The  (one)  heliind  me  coming  seems  to  presup¬ 
pose  their  knowledge  of  the  fact,  that  he  was  to  be  followed  by  an¬ 
other,  though  they  might  not  be  aware  of  the  precise  relation  which 
the  two  sustained  to  one  another.  Mightier^  more  powerful,  implying 
not  only  a  diversity  of  rank  but  also  of  efficiency  and  actual  perform¬ 
ance.  The  first  of  these  ideas  is  then  stated  still  more  strongly  and 
distinctly.  The  difference  was  not  merely  that  of  first  and  second, 
but  of  master  and  servant ;  nay,  it  was  still  more  marked  and  distant. 
For  the  meanest  slave  might  bring  or  carry  his  master’s  sandals  :  but 
this  humblest  of  all  services,  as  rendered  to  John’s  master,  was  too 
great  an  honour  even  for  the  man  whom  all  Judea  and  Jerusalem  had 
come  forth  to  honour.  Worthy^  or  as  the  Greek  word  strictly  means, 
sufficient^  i.  e.  good  enough.  Shoes,  literally,  underhindings.  i.  e. 
sandals,  soles  of  wood  or  leather,  fastened  by  a  strap,  particularly 
mentioned  in  another  form  of  this  repeated  declaration,  which  has 
been  preserved  by  Mark  (1,  7).  To  hear,  or  carry,  with  particular 
reference,  as  some  suppose,  to  a  journey  or  the  bath.  To  an  oriental 
audience  words  could  hardly  have  expressed  the  idea  of  disparity  in  a 
stronger  or  a  more  revolting  manner.  That  John  should  have  made 


MATTHEW  3,11. 


65 


such  a  profes'^ion  of  his  own  inferiority,  not  once  but  often,  in  the 
f)reseiice  of  the  people,  and  at  the  height  of  his  own  popularity,  im¬ 
plies  a  disposition,  on  the  part  of  others,  to  rest  in  him  as  the  expected 
Saviour ;  his  own  clear  view  of  the  subordinate  relation  which  he  bore 
to  Christ;  and  Ids  sincere  and  humble  resolution  to  maintain  it,  even 
in  the  face  of  popular  applause  and  admiration,  and  amidst  the  most 
enticing  oppoi  tunities  of  self-aggrandizement.  What  was  thus  true 
of  the  persons  was  no  less  true  of  the  acts  which  they  performed  and 
the  ellects  which  they  produced.  If  John  was  less,  compared  with 
Christ,  than  the  lowest  slave  compared  with  his  own  master,  what  he 
did,  even  by  divine  authorit}''  and  as  our  Lord’s  legitimate  forerunner, 
must  be  proportionately  less  than  what  his  principal  would  do,  as  to 
intrinsic  u  orth  and  power.  He  shall  baptize  you  in  holy  spirit  or 
(the)  Holy  Spirit ;  for  although  the  article  is  not  expressed  in  either 
of  the  Gospels,  the  constant  use  of  this  phrase  to  denote  a  divine  per¬ 
son  has  almost  rendered  it  a  proper  name,  and  as  such  not  requiring 
to  be  made  definite  by  any  prefix,  like  a  common  noun.  The  antithesis 
is  then  not  only  between  water  and  spirit  but  between  dead  matter  and 
a  divine  person,  an  infinite  disparity.  Now  this  extreme  incalculable 
difference  seems  to  be  predicated  of  baptism  as  administered  by  John 
and  Christ.  But  Jesus  baptized  only  by  the  hands  of  his  disciples 
(John  4,  2),  and  this  was  no  less  water-baptism  than  that  administered 
by  John.  The  contrast,  therefore,  cannot  be  between  John’s  baptism 
as  performed  with  water,  and  that  of  Christ  (or  his  disciples)  as  per¬ 
formed  without  it.  Nor  can  it  be  intended  to  contrast  Christ’s  bap¬ 
tism,  as  attended  by  a  spiritual  influence,  with  John’s  as  unattended 
by  it ;  for  the  latter  is  proved  to  be  essentially  identical  with  Chris¬ 
tian  baptism  by  its  source,  its  effects,  and  its  reception  by  our  Lord 
himself.  There  are  still  two  ways  in  which  the  comparison  may  be 
explained,  and  each  of  which  has  had  its  advocates.  The  first  sup¬ 
poses  the  antithesis  to  be,  not  between  the  baptism  of  John  and  lhat 
of  Christ,  which  were  essentiall}'^  the  same,  but  simply  between  the 
administering  persons.  ‘  I  baptize  you  in  water,  not  without  mean¬ 
ing  and  effect,  but  an  effect  dependent  on  a  higher  power ;  he  will  bap¬ 
tize  you  in  the  same  way  and  with  the  same  effect,  but  in  the  exercise 
of  an  inherent  power,  that  of  his  own  spirit.’  This  construction, 
though  it  3delds  a  good  sense  and  conveys  a  certain  truth,  is  not  so 
natural  and  obvious  as  another,  which  supposes  no  allusion  to  the  out¬ 
ward  rite  of  Christian  baptism  at  all,  but  a  comparison  between  that 
rite,  as  John  performed  it,  and  the  gift  of  spiritual  influences,  figura¬ 
tively  called  a  baptism,  as  the  same  term  is  applied  to  suffering  (sec 
below,  on  20,  22.  23).  The  meaning  then  is,  ‘  I  indeed  bathe  your  bo¬ 
dies  in  water,  not  without  divine  authority  or  spiritual  effect;  but  ho 
whose  way  I  am  preparing  is  so  far  superior,  both  in  power  and  of¬ 
fice,  that  he  will  bathe  your  souls  in  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit.’ 
And  as  this  divine  influence  is  always  described  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  either  as  unction  or  effusion,  and  the  figurative  baptism  must 
correspond  in  form  to  the  literal,  we  have  here  an  incidental  proof  that 
the  primitive  baptism  was  not  exclusively  or  necessarily  immersion. 


66 


MATTHEW  3,  11.  12. 


With  Jire^  not  the  fire  of  divine  wrath,  as  in  v.  10,  but  the  powerful 
an  1  purifying  influences  of  the  Spirit  so  described  elsewhere.  (See 
Isai.  4,4.  64,  2.  Jer.  5,  14.  Mai.  3,  2.  Acts  2,  3.) 

12.  Whose  fan  (is)  in  his  hand,  and  he  will  thoroughly 
purge  his  floor,  and  gather  his  wheat  into  the  garner  ;  but 
he  will  burn  up  the  chaff  with  unquenchable  fire. 

To  the  figure  of  a  fruitless  tree  cut  down  and  burnt  (in  v.  10), 
John  now  adds  that  of  chatf  destroyed  in  the  same  way,  but  with  dis¬ 
tinct  reference  to  the  saved  as  well  as  lost,  the  former  being  represent¬ 
ed  by  the  corn  or  wheat,  the  latter  by  the  chaff,  straw,  or  stubble, 
separated  from  it.  Fan,  or  winnoTving  instrument,  whatever  may  have 
been  its  form,  w'hether  that  of  a  shovel  or  a  fork,  with  which  the  grain 
was  thrown  up  to  be  cleansed  by  the  wind.  (/«)  in  his  hand,  i.  e.  in 
readiness  for  use,  or  just  about  to  be  employed.  Or  without  supply¬ 
ing  any  verb,  we  may  explain  the  phrase  as  a  descriptive  one,  analo¬ 
gous  to  sword  in  hand,  and  others  like  it.  The  axe  could  only  rep¬ 
resent  one  part  of  the  judicial  process,  the  excision  of  the  wicked, 
while  the  fan  suggests  both,  as  its  very  use  was  to  separate  the  wheat 
and  chaff,  in  order  to  the  preservation  of  the  one  and  the  destruc¬ 
tion  of  the  other.  And  (being  thus  armed  or  equipped)  he  will 
(certainly,  or  is  just  about  to)  cleanse  thoroughly,  in  Greek  a  single 
word  meaning  to  cleanse  through  and  through,  or  from  one  end  to  the 
other.  Floor,  not  in  the  usmd  or  wide  sense,  but  in  the  specific  one 
of  threshing-floor,  as  the  corresponding  Hebrew  word  is  sometimes 
rendered  (see  for  example  Gen.  50, 10. 11,  where  both  forms  are  used 
to  represent  precisely  the  same  word  in  the  original).  The  oriental 
threshing-floor  is  not  a  floor  at  all,  in  our  customary  sense  of  the  ex¬ 
pression,  but  a  hard  flat  piece  of  ground,  on  which  the  grain  is  either 
threshed  with  sledges  or  the  feet  of  cattle,  or  exposed  to  the  wind,  to 
which  last  method  there  is  here  allusion.*  To  cleanse  the  floor  is 
either  to  cleanse  the  grain  upon  it  by  removing  all  impurities,  or  to 
cleanse  the  floor  itself  by  the  removal  of  the  grain  thus  purified,  in 
which  case  these  words  are  descriptive  of  the  end  of  the  whole  pro¬ 
cess.  Gather,  collect,  or  bring  together,  first  from  its  dispersion,  at 
the  harvest,  and  then  from  its  mixture  with  the  chaff  and  other  ref¬ 
use,  at  the  winnowing  or  threshing.  His  wheat,  or  his  own  wheat, 
that  belonging  to  him,  which  implies  its  value,  while  the  chaff  belongs 
to  no  one,  because  worthless.  Garner,  granary,  in  Greek  depository, 
or  the  place  where  any  thing  is  laid  up  for  safe-keeping.  I'i*om  this 
word,  through  the  Latin,  comes  apothecary,  and  the  word  itself 
(ApotheTce)  is  used  in  German  to  denote  a  druggist’s  shop  or  store, 
its  specific  application  to  a  barn  or  granary  is  in  accordance  with  the 
classical  usage,  though  Herodotus  applies  it  to  the  thing  deposited,  a 
twofold  usage  similar  to  that  of  store  in  English.  It  might  here  be 
not  inaccurately  rendered  store-house.  The  remaining  clause  presents 

*  See  Deut.  25, 4.  2  Sam.  24,  22.  1  Chr.  21, 23.  Isai.  28,  27. 28.  41, 15. 


MATTHEW  3,12.13. 


67 


the  contrast  under  the  same  figurative  form.  But  (while  he  thus 
secures  his  wheat  in  the  appropriate  place)  the  chaff  {pr  whatever  is 
not  nutritive  and  therefore  valuable)  he  will  hum  literally,  hum 
clown^  both  denoting  entire  consumption,  but  the  latter  being  applicable 
in  our  idiom,  which  differs  from  the  Greek  in  this  point,  only  to 
houses,  or  to  something  which  the  fire  reduces  and  disorganizes  as  well 
as  destroys.  Withjireunquenchahle^  or  more  exactly  unquenched^  i.  e. 
never  quenched  or  put  out,  which  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  as  the 
fact  that  it  is  not  quenched  implies  that  its  extinction  is  impossible. 
The  Greek  word  is  a  favourite  with  Homer,  but  most  frequentl}''  ap¬ 
plied  in  a  figurative  sense  to  what  is  endless  or  unceasing,  such  as 
fame  or  laughter,  and  by  iEschylus  even  to  the  ceaseless  flow  of  ocean. 
The  word  itself  has  now  been  anglicized  (ashestus)  to  denote  natural 
or  artificial  substances  considered  incombustible,  whereas  it  really  de¬ 
scribes  them  as  perpetually  burning.  (Compare  Mark  9.  43.45,  where 
the  same  Greek  woi  d  is  paraphrased,  that  never  shall  he  quenched.') 
With  a  freedom  in  the  use  of  figures  which  is  characterestic  of  the 
Scriptures,  the  same  persons  who  in  v.  10  are  consumed  as  trees  are 
here  consumed  as  chaff",  while  the  careful  preservation  of  the  wheat 
represents  the  destination  of  the  saved.*  In  most  other  instances,  the 
prominent  idea  is  that  of  chaff"  scattered  by  the  wind,  to  which  is  here 
superadded  that  of  burning,  both  which  agencies,  as  some  suppose, 
were  often  visibly  connected  at  the  threshing-floor,  the  wind  to  sepa¬ 
rate  the  chaff"  and  fire  to  destroy  it. 

13.  Then  cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jordan  unto 
John,  to  he  baptized  of  him. 

The  transition  from  John’s  ministry  to  that  of  Christ  is  furnished 
by  the  baptism  of  our  Lord  himself,  as  the  most  important  act  of  the 
former,  and  an  immediate  preparation  for  the  latter.  At  the  same 
time,  it  afforded  the  most  striking  confirmation  of  what  John  himself 
had  taught  as  to  his  own  inferiority  (see  above,  on  v.  11),  by  an  ex¬ 
press  divine  recognition  of  our  Lord  as  the  Messiah.  But  this  was 
not  the  only  nor  perhaps  the  chief  end  of  our  Lord’s  subjection  to 
this  ceremonial  form.  Though  without  sins  of  his  own  to  be  repented 
of,  confessed,  or  pardoned,  he  identified  himself  by  this  act  with  his 
people  whom  he  came  to  save  from  sin  (see  above,  on  1,  21),  and  gave 
them  an  assurance  of  that  great  deliverance ;  f  avowed  his  own  sub¬ 
jection  to  the  law  as  the  expression  of  his  Father’s  will  (see  below,  on 
v.  15)  ;  and  put  honour  upon  John  as  a  divinely  inspired  prophet  and 
his  own  forerunner.  An  ingenious  living  writer  supposes  an  allusion 
to  the  cleansing  rites  required  by  the  ceremonial  law  not  only  in  the 

*  For  similar  images  applied  to  the  same  or  kindred  subjects  compare  Job 
21,1^-  39,12.  Ps.  1,4.  35,5,  Isai.  5,  24.  17,13.  29,5.  41,15.  Jer.  23,28.  Ban.  2, 
35.  Hos.  13,  3.  Zeph.  2,  2.  Mai.  4,  1  (in  Hebrew  3, 19). 

t  Sic  enim  baptizatus  est,  ut  circumcisns  est,  iit  purificatns  in  templo  cum 
matre,  utflagellatus,ut  crucilixus;  nobi.s  Inec  omnia  passus  est,  non  sibi. — Euasmos. 


68 


MATTHEW  3,13.14. 

case  of  personal  impurity,  but  in  that  of  even  accidental  contact  Tritli 
the  unclean.*  Then,  or  in  those  days  (Mark  1,9),  i.  e.  while  John 
was  thus  preaching  and  baptizing,  without  any  intimation  of  the 
length  of  his  ministry,  which  cannot,  however,  have  been  very  long. 
The  conclusion  reached  by  highly  probable,  though  not  entirely  con¬ 
clusive  combinations,  is,  that  from  John’s  public  appearance  to  his  death 
was  a  period  of  about  three  years,  at  least  one  half  of  which  was  spent 
in  prison.  (See  below,  on  14, 1-12.)  Cometh,,  iYie  same  word  that  is 
used  above  (in  v.  17)  to  describe  John’s  own  appearance  as  a  preacher 
and  baptizer  In  this  place,  as  in  that,  it  strictly  signifies  arrival,  but 
perhaps  with  the  accessory  idea  of  a  sudden  unexpected  coming  for¬ 
ward  into  public  view,  for  he  Avas  not  baptized  in  secret  or  alone,  but 
in  the  presence,  if  not  in  the  company  of  others.  (Compare  Luke  3, 
21.)  From  Galilee,  that  is  to  say,  from  Nazareth  in  Galilee  (Mark 
1,9),  Avhere  Joseph  and  Mary  lived  before  the  birth  of  Christ  (Luke 
1,  26. 27),  and  where  they  again  took  up  their  abode  on  their  i-eturn 
from  Egypt.  (See  above,  on  2,22.23,  and  compare  Luke  2,39.51.) 
To  the  Jordan  (as  the  place,  and)  to  John  (as  the  person),  a  distinction 
marked  in  Greek  by  the  use  of  different  prepositions  (eVi  and  .t/jo?), 
but  which  can  only  be  expressed  in  English  b}''  approximation  ( to 
John  at  the  Jordan).  For  a  brief  description  of  this  river,  and  the 
reason  of  John’s  being  there,  see  above,  on  v.  5.  To  he  baptized,  in 
Greek  a  genitive  construction  (for  the  sake  or  purpose  of  being  bap¬ 
tized),  from  Avhich  we  learn  not  only  that  he  was  baptized  (Mark  1, 9), 
but  that  this  was  no  fortuitous  occurrence  or  mere  after-thought,  but 
the  express  design  with  which  he  left  home  and  appeared  among 
John’s  hearers.  Of  him,  or  in  modern  English,  by  him,  as  the  visible 
and  real  agent  in  baptizing,  though  the  act  was  performed  under  a 
superior  authority,  and,  therefore,  only  through  him  as  an  instrumen¬ 
tal  agent,  just  as  prophecies  arc  sometimes  said  to  Jiave  been  uttered 
by  and  sometimes  through  the  prophets.  (See  above,  on  1,  22.  2,  5.  15. 
17  23.) 

14.  But  Jolin  forbad  him,  saying,  I  have  need  to  be 
baptized  of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me  ? 

Although  we  have  no  less  than  three  accounts  of  our  Lord’s  bap¬ 
tism,  it  is  only  from  the  one  before  us  that  we  learn  the  fact  of  John’s 
at  first  declining  to  perform  it.  Forbad,  in  Greek  the  verb  to  hinder 
or  prevent,  compounded  with  a  preposition  (5ul)  meaning  through, 
which  may  either  give  the  verb  the  local  sense  of  stopping,  not  per¬ 
mitting  him  to  pass  (of  which  there  is  a  clear  example  in  the  apocr\’- 
phal  book  of  Judith  12,  7),  or  the  intensive  sense  of  thoroughly  or 
utterly  forbidding  him.  as  in  the  similar  compound  of  the  verb  to 
cleanse,  in  v.  12.  But  in  either  case,  the  main  idea  is  not  so  much  that 

*  See  Lev.  15,  5.  22,  6.  5,  2.  6,  27.  7,  21.  11,  8.  31.  15, 19.  Num.  19,11.  22,  L 
31, 19.  Deut.  14,  8,  and  compare  Hagg.  2, 13.  14. 


MATTHEW  3,14.15. 


69 


of  verbal  prohibition,  which  is  commonly  suggested  by  the  verb 
forMd^jxs  that  of  physical  obstrnction.  hindrance,  or  arrest,  the  act 
of  holding  back  or  stopping  with  the  hand  or  by  some  movement  of 
the  body.  The  imperfect  tense  implies  that  this  was  more  than  a 
momentary  act,  being  still  persisted  in  till  Jesus  spake  the  words  re¬ 
corded  in  the  next  verse.  John  loas  stopping  Mm  (cmd)  saying^  I 
have  need^  etc.,  {when)  Jesus  ansivering  said  (see  below  on  v.  15).  I 
have  need^  a  synonymous  but  stronger  phrase  than  I  iieed^  being  more 
suggestive  of  continued  and  habitual  necessity.  (Compare  its  use  in 
6,8.  9,12.  14,16.  2l,  3.  26,  65.)  Of  thee,  i.  c.  Ijy  thee,  as  in  v.  13. 
Oomest  thou,  a  question,  or  thou  comest,  an  exclgmation,  both  express¬ 
ive  of  surprise,  as  in  John  13,6.  To  me,  i.  e.  to  bo  baptized  by  me, 
as  fully  expressed  in  the  preceding  verse.  This  surprise  of  John 
implies  his  previous  acquaintance  with  the  person,  or  at  least  the 
character,  of  Jesus,  and  perhaps  a  personal  belief  that  he  v  as  the 
Messiah,  which  is  perfectly  consistent  with  his  saying  elsewhere,  that 
he  knew  him  not,  i.  o.  was  not  assured  of  his  Messiahship,  until  he  had 
received  the  promised  sign  from  heaven  (John  1,33).  The  spirit  of 
John’s  language  is, ‘If  either  of  us  is  to  receive  baptism  from  the 
other,  I  should  be  baptized  by  thee  as  thy  inferior  (see  above,  on  v. 
11,  and  compare  lleb.  7,7),  and  as  being  really  a  sinner  needing  par¬ 
don  and  repentance,  whereas  thou  art  thyself  the  Lamb  of  God  which, 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world  (John  1,29.36).  This  shows  how 
far  John  was  from  regarding  his  own  baptism  as  a  magical  charm,  or 
as  intrinsically  eflScacious,  and  how  clearly  he  perceived  and  repre¬ 
sented  it  to  be  significant  of  something  altogether  different  and  de¬ 
pendent  on  a  higher  power.  For  it  is  only  upon  this  ground  that  he 
could  have  seen  an}’’  incongruity  in  his  administering  it  even  to  his 
own  superior,  who  might  have  submitted  to  the  rite,  or  performed  it  as 
an  opus  operatum,  no  less  than  others,  but  who  seemed  to  be  entirely 
beyond  the  reach  and  the  necessity  of  that  which  the  baptismal  wash¬ 
ing  signified,  to  wit,  the  need  of  pardon  and  of  moral  renovation, 
(See  above,  on  v.  0.) 

15.  And  Jesus  answering  said  unto  him,  Suffer  (it  to 
be  so)  now  :  for  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteous¬ 
ness.  Then  he  suffered  him. 

The  participial  construction,  commonly  resolved  by  our  translators 
into  a  past  tense  (see  above,  on  2,  8),  is  here  retained  with  great  ad¬ 
vantage  as  it  is  in  2,  12  above.  The  two  first  words  of  our  Lord’s 
answer  (ac^e?  apTi)  are  perceptive  or  imperative ;  the  rest  assigns  the 
ground  or  reason.  Suffer  is  in  Greek  a  verb  originally  meaning 
to  let  go  or  (more  actively)  to  send  away,  in  v.diich  sense  Matthew 
uses  it  below  (13,  36) ;  then  to  let  alone  or  leave  undisturbed  (as  in 
15, 14.  27,  49) ;  then  to  leave,  in  the  proper  local  sense,  to  go  away 
from  (as  in  4, 11.  20.  22,  and  often  elsewhere);  then  to  leave  with,  or 
give  up  to  (as  in  5,  40) ;  then  to  leave  out  or  omit  (as  in  23,  23) ;  then  to 


70 


MATTHEW  3,15. 


lea't^e  unpunished^  pardon,  or  forgive  (as  in  6, 12.  9,2.  12,  31.  18,21); 
and  lastly  to  permit,  allow,  or  suffer  (as  in  19, 14.  23, 13).  Among 
these  various  shades  of  meaning  there  is  only  one  entirely  inadmissible 
in  this  case,  namely  that  of  simply  leaving  or  forsaking,  since  we  can¬ 
not  understand  our  Lord  as  telling  John  to  leave  him,  when  he  had 
just  come  to  be  baptized  by  him.  But  he  might  say,  in  accordance 
with  the  context  and  the  circumstances,  let  me  go.^  i.  e.  into  the  water, 
from  which  John  was  keeping  him  ;  or  let  m&  alone.,  meddle  not  with  my 
proceedings ;  or  yield  to  me,  give  up  to  my  expressed  wish ;  or  omit,  dis¬ 
pense  with,  these  gratuitous  objections ;  or  even  pardon  me,  excuse 
me,  as  a  formula  of  condescending  courtesy ;  or  finally  permit  me,  suffer 
me  to  do  what  I  am  doing,  which  is  the  sense  preferred  by  most  interpre¬ 
ters  and  well  expressed  in  our  translation  {suffer  it  to  he  so),  though  the 
true  grammatical  construction  may  require  the  ellipsis  to  be  otherwise 
supplied  {suffer  me  to  do  so).  As  John’s  surprise  and  hesitation  neces- 
rily  imply  that  there  was  something  strange  in  the  request  or  applica¬ 
tion,  so  this  one  word  of  our  Lord  implies  that  there  was  really  some 
cause  of  wonder,  and  that  what  he  now  proposed  was  an  exceptional 
extraordinary  act,  and  as  such  to  be  borne  with  and  submitted  to. 
The  next  word  suggests  the  kindred  but  additional  idea,  that  it  was  a 
temporary  act,  or  rather  one  to  be  performed  once  for  all  {hac  una 
vice).  It  is  not  the  common  adverb  of  time  {vvv)  exactly  answering  to 
now  (at  present,  or  at  this  time),  but  another  {apn)  corresponding 
rather  to  just  now  and  presently,  sometimes  referring  to  a  time  already 
and  yet  scarcely  past  (as  in  9, 18  below  and  1  Th.  3,  6);  sometimes  to 
a  proximate  immediate  future  (as  in  26,  53  below  and  John  13,  37); 
sometimes  to  the  present  moment,  as  a  passing  one,  in  contrast  either 
with  the  past  (as  in  John  9,  19.  25)  or  with  the  future  (as  in  .John  13, 
7. 19).  This  last  is  here  to  be  preferred,  not  only  as  by  far  the  most 
common  and  familiar  sense,  but  also  as  best  suiting  the  connection,  and 
especially  the  word  immediately  preceding  («0fr),  as  it  has  been  just 
explained.  The  two  together  then  mean  that  the  act  proposed,  although 
unusual  and  mysterious,  was  to  be  allowed  and  acquiesced  in  for  .some 
temporary  reason.  But  as  this  might  have  seemed  to  represent  it  as  a 
necessary  but  a  real  violation  of  the  order  constituted  by  divine  au¬ 
thority,  our  Lord  precludes  this  misconception  b}’’  affirming  the  con¬ 
trary,  or  giving  as  a  reason  for  his  present  conduct  its  conformity  to 
right  and  to  the  will  of  God.  J^or  thus  (i.  e.  by  acting  in  this  very 
way)  it  becometh,  literally,  is  becoming,  .seemly,  congruous,  i.  e.  pre¬ 
cisely  suited  to  our  character  and  relations,  which  implies  without  ex¬ 
pressing  the  idea  of  duty  or  moral  obligation.  Instead  of  saying,  in  so 
many  words,  we  ought  (or  we  are  bound)  to  do  it,  he  suggests  the  same 
truth  le.ss  directly  and  with  the  additional  idea  of  a  fitness  or  suitable¬ 
ness  springing  from  their  personal  and  mutual  relations,  what  they 
were  in  themselves,  to  one  another,  and  to  God.  (Compare  the  appli¬ 
cation  of  the  same  term,  becoming,  in  Ileb.  2,  10.  7,  26.)  To  fulfil,  the 
verb  applied  to  prophecy  in  1,  22.  2,  15. 17.  23  above,  but  here  used  in 
the  sen.se  before  explained  (on  1,  22)  of  making  good,  completing,  satis- 
lying,  or  discharging  moral  obligations.  In  the  same  sense  it  is  said 


MATTHEW  3,15.16. 


71 


below  (5, 17)  of  the  entire  law,  which  Christ  came  not  to  abrogate  but 
to  obey,  and  here,  with  a  diiference  rather  formal  than  substantial,  of 
all  righteousness^  or  all  right,  meaning  all  that  is  right,  and  as  such  in¬ 
cumbent,  because  pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God,  if  not  explicitly  required 
by  him.  There  may  also  be  a  reference  to  the  doctrinal  meaning  of 
the  same  word  as  employed  by  Paul  (Rom.  3.  21.  22)  to  signify  God’s 
mode  of  justitying  sinners,  or  his  method  of  salvation,  into  w^hich 
Christ’s  baptism  did  unquestionably  enter,  as  a  link  m  the  long  chain 
of  connected  means  by  which  the  end  was  to  be  brought  about.  But 
even  in  the  vague  sense  proposed  above  of  all  that  is  right  and  there¬ 
fore  binding  upon  us,  the  clause  assigns  a  satisfictory  reason  for  re¬ 
quiring  John’s  consent,  to  wit,  that  if  withheld  it  would  leave  some¬ 
thing  undone,  which  it  was  becoming  should  be  done  and  done  by  them. 
For  us  might  possibly  be  taken  in  a  wide  sense  as  denoting  men 

in  general,  but  much  more  probably  denotes  specifically  those  immedi¬ 
ately  concerned  in  this  case,  i.  e.  John  and  Jesus.  It  becometh  (or  is 
suitable  for)  us  (i.  e,  for  me  and  thee  as  my  forerunner)  to  accomplish 
all  that  is  required  by  God,  and  therefoie  right,  as  w’ell  as  necessary 
to  the  execution  of  his  method  of  salvation  by  freely  justifying  all  be¬ 
lievers.  Then^  on  hearing  this  conclusive  and  authoritative  answer, 
{John)  'permits  (or  suffers)  him^  another  instance  of  the  graphic  present 
(see  above,  on  vs.  1.  13,  and  compare  2,  19).  The  meaning  of  the  vei  b  here 
is  of  course  determined  by  its  meaning  in  the  fii’st  clause,  and  according 
to  the  several  alternatives  there  stated,  might  be  rendered,  lets  him  go, 
lets  him  alone,  yields  to  him,  excuses  him,  or  sufiers  him,  which  last 
is  probably  the  true  sense  in  both  cases,  suffers  him  {to  be  baptized). 
This  expresses  more  than  he  baptized  him.  since  it  represents  the  bap¬ 
tism  as  in  some  sense  the  act  of  the  baptized  and  not  of  the  baptizer, 
who  was  really  more  passive  than  the  subject  of  the  rite,  by  whose 
authority,  and  in  direct  obedience  to  whose  positive  command,  it  was 
administered.  That  John  obeyed  in  silence,  though  a  probable  sug¬ 
gestion,  is  not  a  necessary  inference  from  that  of  the  historian,  who 
might  naturally  hurry  over  all  that  John  said  further,  as  without  im¬ 
portance  for  his  purpose,  to  describe  the  baptism  itself,  or  rather  the  di¬ 
vine  recognition  and  attestation  of  our  Lord  as  the  JMessiah,  by  wdiich 
it  was  accompanied  and  followed.  The  pronoun  here  expressed  {suffers 
him)  determines  the  construction  of  the  same  verb  as  elliptically  used 
above. 

16.  And  Jesus,  when  he  was  baptized,  went  up 
straightway  out  of  the  water  :  and  lo,  the  heavens  were 
opened  unto  him,  and  he  saw  the  Spirit  of  God  descend¬ 
ing  like  a  dove,  and  lighting  upon  him. 

The  baptisnj  itself  was  followed  by  a  visible  and  audible  divine  recog¬ 
nition  of  our  Lord  as  the  Messiah.  JIaving  been  baptized.^  not  ichen  he 
was  baptized^  which  is  not  only  a  gratuitous  departure  from  the  form 
of  the  original,  but  leaves  the  order  of  events  in  doubt,  as  when  might 
be  equivalent  to  while^  whereas  the  past  tense  of  the  Greek  verb 


72 


MATTHEW  3,10. 

(iSaTTTic&eis)  determines  it.  Jesus  ascended  (-u'cnt  or  canie  up)  straight- 
icay  (foi  th'.vith  or  immediately)  from,  i.  e.  aicay  from,^  as  in  vs.  7.13. 
and  in  2.  1.  4,  25.  5,  29.  not  out  of  wiiich  would  be  otherwise  expressed, 
as  it  is  in  v.  9,  and  in  2,  C.  15.  7,  5.  8,  28.  much  less  from  undei\  which 
is  not  the  meaning  of  the  particle  in  any  case,  nor  here  suggested  by 
the  context.  Ascended  from  the  icater  evidently  means  went  up  from 
the  bed  of  the  river,  in  which  he  had  just  been  standing,  whether  bap¬ 
tized  by  immersion,  or  affusion,  as  the  most  convenient  method,  even 
in  the  latter  case,  especially  for  those  who  wore  the  flowing  oriental 
dress,  and  either  sandals  (see  above,  on  v.  11)  or  no  covering  of  the 
foot  at  all.  But  even  if  John  did  submerge,  in  this  and  other  cases, 
this  was  no  more  essential  to  the  rite  than  nudity,  as  still  practised  by 
the  bathers  in  the  Jordan,  and  at  least  as  much  implied  in  this  case  as 
immersion.  The  two  things  naturally  go  together,  and  immersion 
without  stripping  seems  to  rob  the  rile  in  part  of  its  supposed  signi¬ 
ficance".  And  hehold  (or  Zo),  as  usual,  implies  a  sudden  unexpected 
sight  (see  above,  on  1,  20.  23.  2,  1.  9.  13).  The  heavens,  a  plural  form 
explained  by  some  as  an  allusion  to  the  fact  or  popular  belief  of  several 
succes.sive  heavens,  one  of  which  seems  to  be  spoken  of  b^"  Paul  (in  2 
Cor.  12  2) ;  but  much  more  probably  a  Hellenistic  imitation  of  the 
corresponding  Hebrew  word  which  has  no  singular,  and  simply  equiva¬ 
lent  to  sky  or  heaven.  Were  opened,  an  entirely  diflerent  word  from 
that  employed  by  Mark  (1.  10),  and  meaning  torn  or  rent,  though  ren¬ 
dered  by  the  same  word  as  the  one  before  us  in  the  text  of  the  transla¬ 
tion.  This  cannot  possibly  denote  a  flash  of  lightning,  or  the  shining 
of  the  stars,  or  a  sudden  clearing  of  the  sky.  or  any  thing  whatever  but 
an  apparent  separation  or  division  of  the  visible  expanse,  as  if  to  allbrd 
passage  to  the  form  and  voice  which  are  mentioned  in  the  next  clause. 
(Compare  the  similar  expressions  of  Isai.  04, 1.  Ezek.  1, 1.  John  1,  52. 
Acts  7,56.)  In  all  these  cases  the  essential  idea  suggested  by  the  ver¬ 
sion  is  that  of  renewed  communication  and  exti  aordinary  gifts  from 
heaven  to  earth.  To  him  is  commonly  explained  as  meaning  to  his 
view  or  to  his  senses,  and  by  some  referred  to  John,  who  elsewhere 
speaks  of  having  seen  this  very  sight,  and  for  whose  satisfaction  and 
direction  it  would  there  seem  to  have  been  imparted  (see  John  1.  33). 
But  although  it  was  an  attestation  not  to  John  alone  but  to  the  people 
(see  Luke  3,  21),  the  only  natural  construction  here  is  that  which  re¬ 
fers  the  words  to  Christ  himself,  the  nearest  antecedent,  especially  if 
the  pronoun  (ouTcu)  be  regarded  as  the  dative,  not  of  object  merel}', 
but  of  use  or  j)rofit  {opened  for  him,  i.  e.  for  his  service  and  a,dvan- 
tage).  The  same  is  tiue  of  tlie  next  verb  {and  he  saw),  which  is  re¬ 
ferred  to  John  by  some,  who  understand  the  previous  clause  of  Jesus; 
but  all  analogy  and  mode  are  in  favour  of  an  uniform  construction,  i.  e. 
of  assuming  the  same  subject  in  both  clauses,  the  heavens  were  opened 
to  him,  and  he  saw  (i.  e,  to  Jesus,  and  Jesus  saw).  This  is  perfectly 
consistent  with  John’s  seeing  the  same  objects,  as  asserted  by  himself 
(.John  1,33),  but  not  with  the  idea  that  this  whole  seme  was  a  vis¬ 
ionary  one,  restricted  to  the  mind  or  the  imagination  either  of  the  Bap¬ 
tist  or  of  Christ  himself.  The  harmonious  variation  of  the  two  accounts 


73 


MATTHEW  3,16.17. 

in  this  respect  ma}^  possibly  have  been  intended  to  prevent  this  error, 
and  to  show  the  ol)jective  reality  of  the  scene  described  in  both  these 
places.  The  Spirit  of  God  cannot  be  an  attribute  or  inlluence,  which 
could  not  be  embodied  or  subjected  to  the  senses,  but  denotes  a  divine 
person  still  more  certainly  and  clearly  than  in  v.  11  above.  Descend¬ 
ing^  the  correlative  expression  to  ascended  in  the  first  clause,  beinj; 
compounds  of  the  same  verb  with  the  prepositions  ugj  and  down.  Lihe 
is  in  Greek  a  compound  particle  made  up  of  the  words  as  and  if  and 
equivalent  in  meaning  to  the  phrase,  as  if  it  had  which  d.)cs 
not  necessarily  imply  that  it  was  not  so,  though  it  cannot  be  employed 
to  prove  the  presence  of  a  real  dove,  much  less  of  one  which  accidentally 
flew  by  or  over,  and  was  viewed  by  John  the  Baptist  as  an  emblem  of  the 
Holy  Ghost!  Equally  groundless  is  the  notion  that  the  point  of  the 
resemblance  or  comparison  is  not  the  shape  or  figure  but  the  motion  of 
the  dove,  as  being  either  swift  or  gentle,  or  in  any  other  way  peculiar. 
The  uncertainty  and  vagueness  of  the  image  thus  presented,  renders  this 
interpretation  as  unnatural  and  foreign  from  the  context  here,  as  it  is 
inconsistent  with  the  more  ex[)licit  terms  employed  by  Luke  (3,  22). 
The  natural  expression,  and  indeed  the  strict  construction  of  the  words, 
is  that  there  were  was  an  appearance  of  a  dove,  most  probably  a  form 
momentarily  assumed,  in  order  to  make  visible  the  union  of  the  Spirit 
with  the  Son  on  this  august  occasion.  The  selection  of  this  form  has 
been  referred  by  some  to  the  natural  qualities  belonging  to  the  dove, 
such  as  gentleness  and  purity ;  by  others  to  its  hovering  and  brooding 
motion,  used  in  Gen.  1,  2,  according  to  an  ancient  Jewish  exposition, 
to  describe  the  generative  or  productive  agency  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in 
the  first  creation.  Instead  of  this,  or  in  addition  to  it,  some  suppose  a 
reference  to  the  dove  of  Noah  (Gen.  8,  8-11)  and  to  the  sacrificial  use 
of  this  bird,  as  prescribed  or  permitted  by  the  ritual  in  certain  cases 
(Gen.  15,  9.  Lev.  14,  22.  21,  G.  Luke  2,  24).  Whether  all  or  any  of 
these  reasons  entered  into  the  divine  plan  of  our  Lord’s  inauguration 
as  the  Christ,  can  only  be  conjectured,  and  is  wholly  unimportant  in 
comparison  with  what  must  be  regarded  as  the  certain  and  essential 
fact  recorded,  namely,  that  the  incarnate  Son  did  see  the  Spirit  in  a 
bodily  form  (Luke  3, 22),  not  only  descending  from  the  open  heavens, 
but  coming  to  and  on  himself,  as  the  central  figure  in  this  glorious 
scene,  and  as  the  person  with  whom  the  Divine  Spirit,  though  essen¬ 
tially  one  with  him,  now  entered  into  new  relations,  with  a  view  to 
that  mediatorial  work  in  which  they  were  to  be'  respectively  the  Sa¬ 
viour  and  the  Sanctifier  of  mankind. 

17.  And  lo,  a  voice  from  heaven,  saying,  This  is  my 
beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased. 

The  visible  presence  and  communication  of  the  Spirit  was  attended 
by  an  audible  testimony  from  the  Father.  Lo  (or  Toehold)  again  intro¬ 
duces  something  strange  and  unexpected.  There  is  no  need  of  supply¬ 
ing  came  from  the  parallel  accounts  (Mark  1, 11.  Luke  3,  22),  as  lo  is 
often  followed  by  a  nominative  absolute  (i.  c.  without  a  verb),  forming 

4 


74 


MATTHEW  3,17. 


not  a  complete  sentence  but  an  exclamation.*  A  voice,  not  visionary 
or  imaginaiy,  nor  heard  only  by  our  Lord  himself,  nor  that  mysterious 
echo  which  the  Jews  call  Bath-lcol,  but  a  literal  and  l  eal  sound,  corre¬ 
sponding  to  the  bodily  appearance  (Luke  3,21}  bj"  which  it  was  pre¬ 
ceded  (see  above,  on  v.  16).  That  the  voice  was  audible  to  others,  may 
be  learned  from  the  analogous  occurrence  at  the  Transfiguration,  where 
the  added  words  {Hear  ye  liiiii)  were  addressed  directly  to  the  three 
disciples  (see  below,  on  17,  5).  From,  or  more  exactly,  out  of,  (see 
above,  on  v.  16,  where  the  usage  of  the  prepositions  eV  and  ani'>)  is  ex¬ 
plained.  Heaven,  literally  the  heavens,  as  in  the  preceding  verse, 
though  here  (and  in  Mark  1,  11)  needlessly  assimilated  in  the  English 
version  to  the  singular  form  used  by  Luke  (3,  22).  This  is,  as  if  still 
addressing  others,  whereas  Mark  and  Luke  have  thou  art,  as  addressed 
to  Christ  himself.  This  variation  in  reporting  words  expressly  used 
on  a  particular  occasion,  although  made  a  ground  of  cavil  here  and 
elsewhere,!  is  susceptible  of  easy  explanation  on  the  principle  which 
all  men  recognize,  if  not  in  theory  in  practice,  that  one  witness  may 
report  the  substance  and  another  the  exact  form  without  any  inconsis¬ 
tency  or  violation  of  the  truth.  This,  i.  e.  this  man  now  before  you,  upon 
whom  the  Spirit  lias  descended  in  your  presence.  My  Son,  the  words' 
applied  to  the  jNIessiah  in  the  promise  made  to  David  (2.  Sam.  7, 14), 
and  in  his  own  prophetic  psalm  founded  on  it  (Ps.  2.  7).  Hence  WiQ  Son 
of  God  became  one  of  his  standing  designations  (see  below,  on  4,  3.  6. 
8,  20.  14,  33.  26,  63.  27,  40.  54),  corresponding  to  his  other  title.  Son 
of  Man  (Dan.  7, 13.  Matt.  8,  20.  9,  6.  10,  23.  11,  19  &c.),  each  imply¬ 
ing  more  than  it  expresses,  the  Son  of  God  (who  is  the  Son  of  Man), 
the  Son  of  Man  (who  is  the  son  of  God).  The  filial  relation  thus 
ascribed  to  the  Messiah,  far  from  excluding,  pre.supposes  his  eternal 
sonship.  My  heloved  Son,  is  more  emphatically  worded  in  the  Greek, 
my  Son,  the  Beloved,  as  a  sort  of  proper  name  or  distinctive  title. 
(Compare  the  similar  but  not  identical  expression  in  Eph.  1,  6.)  As 
this  epithet  could  not  be  applied,  in  the  same  sense,  to  any  other  being, 
it  is  really  coincident,  though  not  synonymous,  with  oicn  son  (Rom.  8, 
32),  only  son  (Gen.  22,  2.  12,  where  the  Septuagint  uses  the  same 
Greek  word),  only  hegotten,  as  applied  to  human  relations  by  Luke  (7, 
12.  8.42.  9,  38),  and  to  divine  b}^  John  (1,14.18.  3,16.18.  1  John 
4,9),  and  Paul  (Hcb.  11.17).  The  combination  of  these  epithets  by 
Mark  (12,  6)  and  Homer  {ijovvos  Hv  dytnrrjTos),  far  from  proving  them 
synonymous,  explicitly  distinguishes  between  them.  This  divine  love 
is  not  to  be  deemed  as  the  ground  or  cause,  but  the  effect  or  co-eternal 
adjunct  of  the  sonship  here  ascribed  to  Christ.  The  remaining  words 
are  also  borrowed  from  a  Messianic  prophecy,  still  extant  in  Isaiah 
(42, 1),  and  expressly  quoted  and  applied  by  Matthew  elsewhere  (see 
below,  on  12,  18).  In  whom,  or  as  Luke  {d,  22)  and  the  latest  text  of 
Mark  (1, 11)  read  in  thee  (see  above,  on  the  preceding  clause).  I  am 


*  Sec  below,  on  7,4.  and  compare  Luke  5,  12.  19,  20.  Acts  8,  27.  Rev.  4,1. 
G  2.  7  9. 

t  Sec  below,  on  9,11.  15,27.  IG,  6.  20,88.  21,  9.  26,28.39.  27,37.  28,  5. 


MATTHEW  4,1. 


75 


wellflemedj  is  in  Greek  a  single  word,  the  aorist  of  a  verb  used  some- 
times  to  express  volition,  and  then  construed  with  a  following  infinitive, 
but  sometimes  perfect  satisfaction  or  complacency,  the  object  of  which 
is  then  denoted  by  a  noun  or  pronoun  following.*  According  to  the 
theory  and  usage  of  the  Greek  verb,  both  in  the  classics  and  in  Scrip¬ 
ture  (see  above,  on  1,  22),  the  aorist  (evduKT^cra)  is  to  be  confounded  nei¬ 
ther  with  the  present,  I  am  {noic)  well  jjleased^  nor  with  the  perfect,  I 
have  {ever)  heen  well  pleased,  but  has  respect  to  a  specific  point  of  time, 
I  was  {once)  well  pleased.  Although  the  deviations  from  this  strict  rule 
are  sufficient  to  authorize  a  liberal  construction  when  required  by  exe- 
getical  necessity,  the  latter  is  precluded  in  the  case  before  us  by  the  ob¬ 
vious  allusion  to  the  Son’s  assumption  of  the  Mediatorial  office,  which 
is  here  presented  as  the  ground  or  reason  of  the  Father’s  infinite  com¬ 
placency  or  approbation,  as  distinguished  from  what  niay  be  called,  for 
want  of  any  better  term,  the  natural  affection  or  intense  love,  which 
enters  into  our  conception  of  the  mutual  relation  of  paternity  and  son- 
ship.  There  is  therefore  no  tautology  in  these  two  clauses,  but  the  first 
describes  our  Lord  as  the  beloved  Son  of  God  from  all  eternity;  the 
second  as  the  object  of  his  infinite  complacency  and  approbation  as  the 
Son  of  Man,  the  Mediator,  the  Messiah.  In  this  voluntarily  assumed 
or  adopted  character,  the  Son  of  God  was  recognized  and  set  forth  at 
his  baptism.  Though  himself  the  only  Son  of  God  by  nature  or  inhe¬ 
rent  right,  he  is  here  offered  to  us  as  a  pledge  of  our  adoption,  so  that 
through  his  mediation  we  may  all  become  the  Sons  of  God,  “to  the 
praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace,  wherein  he  hath  made  us  accepted  in 
the  Beloved”  (Eph.  1,  6,  compare  Col.  1, 15.  20.  1  John  3,  1).  Tliis 
sublime  and  solemn  recognition  of  our  Lord  in  his  official  chracter,  in¬ 
volves  a  sti'iking  exhibition  of  the  threefold  personality  in  the  divine 
essence,  the  Father  audibly  addressing  and  the  Spirit  visibly  descend¬ 
ing  on  the  incarnate  Son,  as  he  assumes  his  Messianic  Office. 


CHAPTEE  IV. 

Continuing  his  narrative  of  the  events  immediately  preceding  our 
LoitTs  public  ministry  and  serving  as  preliminaries  to  it,  JMatthew  now 
records  his  conflict  with  the  Tempter  in  the  wilderness,  and  trium])h 
over  him  (1-11).  He  then  begins  the  history  of  our  Lord’s  prophetic 
ministry  in  Galilee,  which  opens  where  the  ministry  of  John  the  Bap¬ 
tist  closes,  and  is  shown  to  have  been  long  before  predicted  by  Isaiah 
(12-17).  At  Capernaum,  the  chosen  centre  of  his  operations,  he  se- 

*  Compare  Luke  12,  32.  Rom.  15,  20.  2  Cor.  5,  8.  Gal.  1, 15.  Col.  1, 19.  1  Thess. 
2,  8.  with  1  Cor.  10,  5.  2  Cor.  12, 10.  2  Thess.  2, 12.  Heb.  10,  6.  8,  38.  2  Pet.  1, 17. 


70 


MATTHEW^  4,1. 

lects  four  fishermen  to  be  his  personal  attendants,  and  eventually  his 
Apostles  (18-22).  This  is  followed  by  a  summaiy  account  of  his  itine¬ 
rant  labours,  as  a  teacher  and  a  healer,  with  the  consequent  concourse 
from  all  quarters,  both  of  Palestine  and  the  adjacent  countries  (23-25). 


1.  Then  was  Jesus  led  up  of  the  Spirit  into  the  wil¬ 
derness,  to  be  tempted  of  the  devil. 

Then^  a  favourite  connective  in  this  gospel,  where  it  occurs  thrice 
as  often  as  in  all  the  others  put  together,  a  minute  but  strong  proof 
that  inspiration  did  not  supersede  the  peculiar  modes  of  thought  and 
speech  by  which  the  sacred  writers  were  distinguished.  As  it  may  mean 
either  afterioards  or  at  the  same  time,  and  in  the  former  case  may  de¬ 
note  either  longer  or  shorter  intervals,  it  can  here  prove  nothing  by 
itself  as  to  the  chronological  relation  of  the  incidents  which  it  connects 
in  Matthew’s  narrative,  namely  our  Lord’s  Baptism  and  Temptation. 
It  does,  however,  raise  a  presumption  that  they  were  immediately  suc¬ 
cessive,  and  this  presumption  is  confirmed  by  the  more  explicit  lan¬ 
guage  of  the  parallel  accounts  (Mark  1,12.  Luke  4,1).  Jesus,  Vfho 
had  just  been  recognized  as  the  Son  of  God  by  a  voice  from  heaven  and 
the  visible  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (sec  above,  on  3,  17).  Was  led 
up,  as  if  passively,  and  in  obedience  to  an  impulse  distinct  from  his  own 
will,  though  not  opposed  to  it.  Of  (i.  e.  hy)  the  Spirit,  as  the  source 
or  author  of  the  impulse  just  referred  to.  The  Spirit  does  not  mean 
his  own  mind  or  the  evil  spirit,  but  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  a  divine  per¬ 
son,  often  simply  so  described,  which  had  just  descended  visibly  (3, 
17)  and  rested  on  him  (John  1,32),  and  of  which  he  was  now  full 
(Luke  4, 1),  i.  e.  occupied,  endowed,  and  governed  by  it,  not  merely  as 
a  man,  but  as  the  God-Man  or  iMediator,  in  which  character  or  office 
he  sustained  a  peculiar  relation  to  the  third  person  of  the  godhead,  as 
the  author  of  all  spiritual  good  in  the  hearts  and  lives  of  men,  and  in 
his  own  as  their  surety  and  their  representative.  Into  the  wilderness, 
not  in  the  wide  sense  of  the  term  before  explained  (on  3, 1),  namely 
that  of  an  uninhabited  or  even  an  uncultivated  tract,  however  fertile  or 
luxuriant ;  but  in  the  strict  sense  of  a  desert,  yielding  no  supplies,  and  far 
from  the  abodes  of  men,  frequented  only  by  wild  animals  (Mark  1,  13). 
Whether  the  wilderness  here  meant  was  the  interior  and  wilder  por¬ 
tion  of  the  one  wliere  John  appeared  (3, 1),  so  that  our  Lord,  though  in 
the  wilderness  alread}’’,  might  be  said  to  have  gone  (i.  e.  to  have  gone 
further)  into  it ;  or  a  distinct  and  wilder  solitude,  extending  from  the 
Jortlan  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jericho  to  Bethel  (Josh.  IG,  1);  or  the 
wilderness  of  Sinai,  where  the  Israelites  wandered,  and  where  JMoses 
and  Elijah  fasted  (Ex.  34,  28.  1  Kings  19,  8),  are  questions  not  deter¬ 
mined  by  the  text  or  context,  and  of  little  exegctical  importance,  as  the 
only  essential  flict,  because  the  only  one  recorded,  is  that  these 
transactions  took  place  in  a  desert,  far  from  all  human  aid  and 
sympathy.  Led  up,  i.  e.  as  some  understand  it,  towards  Jeru¬ 
salem,  in  reference  to  its  physical  and  moral  elevation,  but  much 
more  probably,  from  the  depressed  bed  or  valley  of  the  Jordan 


MATTHEW  4,1.2. 


77 


into  the  mountainous  solitudes  of  Bethel  or  the  Dead  Sea,  where 
tradition  desig-nates  the  spot  by  the  name  of  Quarantaria^  in  allusion 
to  the  forty  days’  fast  recorded  in  the  next  verso.  To  be  tempted,  not 
as  a  mere  incidental  consequence  (so  that  he  loas  tempted),  but  as  the 
deliberate  design  or  purpose  (that  he  might  be  tempted),  not  of  his  own 
mind,  which  at  least  is  not  directly  meant,  but  of  the  Father  who  had 
sent  him,  and  the  Spirit  who  now  led  him.  To  be  tempted  means 
originally  nothing  more  than  to  be  tried,  proved,  or  (in  modern  Eng¬ 
lish)  tested,  i.  e.  shown  to  possess  or  want  certain  qualities,  to  be  deter¬ 
mined  by  comparison  with  some  prescribed  and  well-known  rule  or 
standard.  In  a  material  sense  the  term  is  thus  applied  to  the  precious 
metals,  in  a  moral  sense  to  human  character,  as  proved  or  tried  by 
God  himself,  or  as  solicited  to  sin  by  men  or  devils,  in  which  sense 
God  can  no  more  tempt  than  he  can  be  tempted  (James  13).  The 
great  tempter  of  mankind  is  the  prince  of  demons  (9,  34.  12,  24),  or 
the  chief  of  fallen  angels  (25,41),  by  whom  our  first  parents  were  be¬ 
trayed  into  transgression  (2  Cor.  11,  3),  and  Avho  is  therefore  called 
Satan  or  the  Adversary  (Mark  1, 13),  and  the  Devil,  slanderer  or  false 
accuser  (Luke  4,  2).  It  was  by  this  enemy  of  God  and  Man  that  Jesus 
now  went  up  into  the  desert  to  be  tempted,  as  a  necessaiy  part  of  his 
own  human  discipline  and  humiliation  (see  above,  on  3,  15) ;  as  a  les¬ 
son  to  his  people  of  what  they  must  look  for,  and  an  assurance  of  their 
own  escape  and  triumph ;  but  besides  all  this,  as  a  premonition  of  the 
great  decisive  crisis  in  the  war  between  the  “  seed  of  the  woman  ”  and 
the  “seed  of  the  serpent”  (see  above,  on  3,  7),  the  heads  and  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  both  which  parties  were  now  to  be  brought  personally 
into  contact.  Our  Lord’s  susceptibility  of  temptation  was  no  more  in¬ 
consistent  with  his  sinlcssness  than  that  of  Adam,  and  is  insisted  on 
in  Scripture  as  essential  to  liis  office,  and  especially  as  necessary  to  a 
real  sympathy  between  him  and  his  tempted  people  (Heb.  2,  18).  This 
scriptural  idea  has  been  variously  amplified,  embellished,  and  extended, 
by  ingenious  and  in  some  cases  fanciful  comparisons  between  the  three 
temptations  here  recorded  and  the  threefold  bait  presented  to  Eve 
(Gen.  3,  G),  the  threefold  description  of  worldly  lusts  by  the  Apostle 
(1  John  2, 16),  the  successive  temptations  of  Israel  in  the  wilderness, 
those  peculiarly  belonging  to  the  three  great  periods  of  human  life, 
and  to  the  corresponding  stages  in  the  progress  of  the  race  or  of  par¬ 
ticular  nations  ;  to  which  has  recently  been  added  an  analogy  between 
these  temptations  and  the  three  great  offices  of  Christ  on  one  hand, 
and  the  three  great  Jewish  sects  or  parties  on  the  other.  As  such 
comparisons  admit  of  an  indefinite  multiplication,  and  depend  upon  the 
taste  and  fancy  of  the  individual  interpreter  or  reader ;  they  are  not  to 
be  farced  upon  the  text  as  a  part  of  its  essential  meaning,  whatever 
use  may  be  made  of  them  as  striking  and  illustrative  analogies. 

2.  And  when  he  had  fasted  forty  days  and  forty 
nights,  he  was  afterwards  an  hungjered. 

A  mi  having  fasted,  not  in  the  attenuated  sense  of  eating  little,  or  of 


78 


MATTHEW  4,2.3. 

abstaining  from  all  ordinarj^  food  (see  above,  on  3,  4)  ;  but  in  the  strict 
and  proper  sense  of  eating  nothing  (Luke  4,  2).  Forty  days  and  forty 
nights,  i.  e.  forty  whole  days  of  entire  privation,  not  merely  half  days 
of  such  abstinence  with  intervening  periods  of  indulgence,  such  as  the 
later  Jews,  according  to  their  owm  traditions,  practised  in  their  stated 
fasts.  This  protracted  fast  of  Christ,  being  clearlj^  miraculous  or  su¬ 
perhuman,  affords  no  example  to  his  people,  and  can  be  imitated  by 
them  only  in  the  wa}’’  of  thankful  and  reverent  commemoration.  A 
yearly  fast  of  forty  days,  whatever  it  may  have  to  recommend  it,  can 
never  be  made  binding  on  the  conscience  by  this  extraordinary  inci¬ 
dent  occurring  once  for  all  in  the  biography  of  Jesus.  Was  an  hun¬ 
gered^  an  unusual  phrase  even  in  Old  English,  corresponding  to  a  sin¬ 
gle  word  in  Greek,  and  that  an  active  verb,  meaning  nothing  more  nor 
less  than  hungered,  or  in  modern  phrase,  leas  hungry.  Afterward.^  a 
relative  expression  which  can  only  be  referred  to  the  preceding  clause, 
and  must  mean  therefore  when  the  forty  days  were  ended.  This  im¬ 
plies  that  while  they  lasted  he  was  free  from  hunger;  and  this  again 
that  his  fast  was  not  a  painful  act  of  self-denial,  but  an  abnormal  pre¬ 
ternatural  condition,  having  no  analogy  in  our  experience,  and  there¬ 
fore  not  a  proper  object  of  our  imitation.  As  here  recorded  it  has 
reference,  not  so  much  to  bodily  mortification,  or  even  spiritual  disci¬ 
pline,  as  to  intimate  and  exclusive  intercourse  wnth  God,  like  that  of 
Moses  and  Elijah,  when  called  to  the  solemn  task  of  legislation  and 
of  reformation  (see  above,  on  v.  1).  To  these  great  historical  exam¬ 
ples  there  is  evident  allusion  in  the  mention  of  the  forty  days,  an  ex¬ 
ternal  circumstance  alike  in  all  three  cases.  As  the  abstinence  fiom 
food  for  such  a  length  of  time  evinced  an  interruption  or  suspension 
of  the  ordinary  laws  of  life,  so  the  hunger  which  follo'wed  showed  the 
suspension  to  be  at  an  end.  and  the  humanity  of  Christ  to  be  no  less 
real  than  that  of  the  Great  Lawgiver  and  Keformcr  of  the  old  econ¬ 
omy. 

3.  And  when  the  tempter  came  to  him,  he  said,  If 
thou  he  the  Son  of  God,  command  that  these  stones  he 
made  bread. 

As  it  is  not  said  that  this  was  the  beginning  of  our  Lord’s  tempta¬ 
tion,  there  is  no  inconsistency  with  the  account  of  Mark  (1,  13)  and 
Luke  (4,  2),  that  he  was  tempted  forty  da3’s.  Both  may  be  reconciled 
by  simply  assuming  that  the  three  temptations  here  recorded  were  the 
last  of  a  long  sei-ies,  and  pei  haps  the  only  ones  in  which  the  tempter 
became  visible.  The  sense  of  Matthew’s  narrative  will  then  be,  that 
after  having  otherwise  assailed  him,  in  a  way  perhaps  which  could  not 
have  bccu  comprehensible  to  us,  the  tempter  now  approached  him  vis¬ 
ibly,'  and  took  advantage  of  the  natural  hunger  which  succeeded  his 
extraordinary  abstinence.  IVie  tempter litcrall3g  the  {one)  temgyting^ 
i.  e.  the  one  who  was  to  tempt  our  Lord  on  this  occasion,  but  not 
without  allusion  to  his  character  and  practice,  as  the  {one)  tempting 


79 


MATTHEW  4,3. 

(others  also)  or  the  tempter  (of  mankind  in  general).  The  idea  that 
the  tempter  mentioned  here,  is  a  mere  personihcation  of  our  Lord’s  own 
thoughts  and  dispositions,  is  as  irupious  as  it  is  absurd.  That  the 
tempter,  though  a  real  person,  was  a  human  one,  the  High  Priest,  or  a 
member  of  the  Sanhedrim,  or  one  of  the  emissaries  sent  to  John  the 
Baptist  (John  1,  19)  now  on  his  way  back  to  Jerusalem,  are  notions 
whicn,  if  ever  seriously  entertained,  have  long  since  been  exploded. 
The  impression  made  by  the  terms  of  the  narrative  itself  for  ages  upon 
every  unsophisticated  reader  is  undoubtedly  the  true  one,  namely,  that 
the  tempter  who  appears  in  this  transaction,  was  a  personal  but  not  a 
human  being,  or  in  other  words  an  evil  spirit,  and  the  one  emphati¬ 
cally  called  the  Devil  (see  above,  on  v.  1).  When  the  tempter  came  to 
him  is  not,  as  it  might  seem  in  English,  a  mere  note  of  time,  but  a 
substantive  part  of  the  transaction,  coming  to  (approaching)  him-,  the 
tempter  said.  The  voice  which  spake  w'as  not  that  of  an  unseen 
speaker,  or  uttered  from  above  or  from  below,  but  by  a  person  coming 
up  to  him,  perhaps  as  a  stranger,  or  a  casual  passer  b}".  This  supposes 
him,  however,  to  have  exhibited  an  ordinary  human  form,  whereas 
some  think  that  he  was  transformed  into  an  angel  of  light  (2  Cor.  11, 
14),  and  others  that  he  wore  a  shape  peculiar  to  himselt,  or  at  least  to 
fallen  angels.  There  is  nothing  in  the  text  or  context  to  decide  this 
question,  which  is  rather  one  of  curiosity  than  of  cxegetical  impor¬ 
tance.  If  a  son  thou  art  of  God  would  be  the  strict  translation ;  but 
as  the  usage  of  the  article  in  this  phrase  varies,  even  where  the  sense 
remains  unchanged,*  the  indefinite  form  is  not  to  be  insisted  on.  The 
division  of  the  chapters  tempts  the  reader  to  regard  this  scene  as 
w’holly  unconnected  with  the  one  before  it  in  the  narrative,  although 
they  were  immediately  successive  (see  above,  on  v.  1),  and  the  first 
wmrds  of  the  tempter,  here  recorded,  seem  to  contain  an  allusion  to  the 
solemn  recognition  of  our  Lord  as  the  Son  of  God  by  a  voice  from 
heaven  (see  above,  on  3,  17),  of  which  Satan  may  have  been  himself  a 
witness.  This  clause  may  be  either  understood  as  expressing  a  doubt 
(if  thou  art  really  the  Son  of  God),  or  as  admitting  that  the  fact  was 
so  (since  thou  art  the  Son  of  God),  wdiich  last  is  no  less  in  agreement 
wdth  Greek  usage.  On  the  former  supposition,  the  remainder  of  ihe 
verse  prescribes  a  test  by  which  the  truth  of  his  pretensions  might  be 
tried;  on  the  other,  it  simply  makes  a  proposition  or  request,  which 
could  not  be  complied  with,  if  he  w^ere  not  really  the  Son  of  God. — 
Command  that^  literally,  Say  (or  speak,  in  order)  that^  for  the  purpose 
of  seeing  this  effect.  (As  to  the  usage  of  the  Greek  conjunction,  see 
above,  on  1,  22).  These  stones^  perhaps  the  same  to  w^hich  John  the 
Baptist  pointed  (see  above,  on  3,  9),  or  at  least  of  the  same  kind,  i.  e. 
loose  stones  scattered  on  the  surface  of  the  desert. — Be  made.^  or  more 
exactly,  may  hecome,  begin  to  be,  i.  e.  be  changed  into  (see  above,  on 
1,  22). — Bread^  literally,  breads^  i.  e.  loaves  or  cakes,  a  usage  similar  to 
that  of  the  French  {j^ains).  This  plui'al  form  rendei’S  it  less  probable 
that  hreadi  some  suppose,  and  as  it  does  in  15,  2  below  and  else- 


*  Compare  the  original  of  8,  29.  14,  33.  16,  IG.  26,  63.  27,  40.  43. 


80 


MATTHEW  4,3. 

where  stand  for  food  in  general,  the  different  varieties  of  which  wonld 
hardly  be  denoted  by  the  plural  {breads).  The  strict  intei'pretation  is 
confirmed,  moreover,  by  the  proverbial  antithesis  or  contrast  between 
stone  and  bread  (or  stones  and  loaves)  both  in  Scripture  (see  below,  on 
7,  9),  and  in  the  classics.  The  suggestion  of  the  tempter  then  was  not 
that  he  sliould  supply  himself  with  dainties  or  varieties  of  food  to 
gratify  his  appetite,  but  simply  wuth  the  staff  of  life,  to  satisfy  his 
hunger.*  If  so,  the  first  temptation  ^vas  not  to  the  sin  of  gluttony, 
as  some  have  strangely  fancied,  which  could  not  have  been  committed 
by  eating  bread  when  hungry,  and  after  a  fast  of  forty  days,  and  to 
wdiich  our  Lord’s  reply  in  the  next  verse  would  be  wdiolly  irrelevant. 
Nor  was  the  temptation  to  a  vain  and  ostentatious  exhibition  of  mi¬ 
raculous  endowments,  which  would  have  been  thrown  away  in  such  a 
spot,  and  to  which  the  answer  would  be  no  less  inappropriate.  The 
only  sin,  which  satisfies  the  terms  of  the  whole  context,  is  that  of  dis¬ 
trusting  God  and  refusing  to  rely  upon  his  providence,  by  undertaking 
to  supply  one’s  own  wants  and  sustain  one’s  own  life,  in  the  exercise 
of  an  extraordinary  power. — As  to  the  motive  or  design  of  this  temp¬ 
tation,  some  regard  it  as  a  mere  desire  to  induce  our  Lord  to  sin,  and 
in  a  way  suggested  by  his  actual  condition,  'which  was  one  of  hunger. 
Others  suppose  it  to  have  been  a  more  specific  wish  to  ascertain  the 
truth  of  his  pretensions,  by  inducing  him  to  act  in  a  manner  inconsist¬ 
ent  wdth  them. — Another  point  which  may  be  variously  understood, 
because  entirely  conjectural,  is  the  knowledge  which  the  tempter  had 
of  Christ’s  divinity,  or  the  sense  which  he  attached  to  his  acknowledged 
Sonship.  Though  the  title  Son  of  God  was  applicable  to  him  in  the 
highest  sense,  as  denoting  community  of  nature  or  participation  in  the 
essence  of  the  Father  (see  above,  on  3,  17),  it  admitted  also  of  a  lower 
application  to  his  human  nature,  to  mankind  in  general,  to  angels 
both  as  creatures  and  as  objects  of  divine  affection  \  and  the  tempter 
may  have  been  in  ignorance  or  doubt  as  to  which  of  these  relations 
was  denoted  b}^  the  phrase  when  uttered  b}"  the  voice  from  heaven,  or, 
as  some  suppose,  applied  by  Jesus  to  himself  in  previous  conversations 
during  the  forty  days  preceding  this  direct  and  overt  demonstration 
of  hostility.  In  favour  of  such  ignorance  or  doubt  is  the  extreme  im¬ 
probability  that  Satan  would  have  dared,  or  thought  it  possible,  to 
tempt  a  divine  person ;  whereas  a  Son  of  God^  in  some  of  the  infei-ior 
senses  which  have  just  been  mentioned,  might  be  capable  of  falling 
into  sin  as  the  apostate  fiend  himself  had  done  (John  8.  44.  Jude  6). 
This  seems  to  be  a  more  satisfactory  solution  of  his  conduct  upon  this 
occasion,  than  to  resolve  it  into  the  fatuity  which  naturally  clings  to 
all  depravity,  and  which  therefore  might  betray  even  the  most  crafty 
and  sagacious  of  all  finite  spirits  into  the  absurdity  of  tempting  God 
to  sin,  as  he  had  no  less  foolishly  attempted  to  resist  him,  or  to  be  his 
rival.  All  this,  however,  is  mere  matter  of  conjecture  or  imagination, 
as  the  narrative  itself  affords  no  hint  of  an}’-  thing  but  what  was  ac¬ 
tually  said  and  done,  and  the  whole  subject  of  Satanic  agency  is  too 


*  Lev.  20,  2G.  Ps,  105,  16.  Tsai.  3, 1.  Ez.  4,16.  5, 16.  14,13. 


MATTHEW  4,4.5. 


81 


mysterious  and  too  imperfectly  revealed,  to  bo  successfully  subjected 
to  a  process  of  reasojiing  or  of  speculation. 

4.  But  he  answered  and  said^  It  is  written,  Man  shall 
not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  that  proceed- 
eth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God. 

The  contrast  is  not  betv'ccn  material  and  spiritual  food,  which 
would  be  wholly  inappropriate  to  this  temptation,  but  between  or¬ 
dinary  food,  represented  by  bread,  and  any  other  food  which  God 
may  prescribe  or  promise.  This  is  clear  from  the  connection  here  and 
in  the  passage  quoted  (Dent.  8,  3),  where  the  reference  is  plainly  to 
the  manna,  not  as  immaterial  food,  which  it  was  not,  but  as  a  succeda- 
neum  for  the  usual  kind  of  nourishment,  by  which  the  Israelites  were 
taught  to  rely  upon  Providence  not  only  for  the  customary  means  of 
subsistence,  but  for  extraordinary  supplies  in  rare  emergencies.  The 
application  intended  b}'-  our  Saviour  to  his  own  case  evidently  is,  that 
in  providing  for  liimself  by  miracle,  he  would  be  guilty  of  the  same 
sin  which  the  ancient  Jews  so  frequently  comnnitted.  that  of  question¬ 
ing  God’s  willingness  and  powder  to  supply  them.  But  (on  the  other 
hand,  and  in  reply  to  this  suggestion)  he  (Jesus)  answering  said^  JSFot 
on  bread  only  (or  alone)^  i.  e.  in  reliance  or  dependence  on  it  as  the 
only  practicable  means  of  sustenance,  shall  man  lire^  i.  e,  is  he,  by  di¬ 
vine  appointment  and  the  law  of  his  condition,  to  subsist,  but  on  (or 
according  to  the  latest  critics,  m,  i.  c.  in  the  use  of)  erery  loord  pro¬ 
ceeding  through  the  mouth  of  God^  or  uttered  by  him.  Word  neither 
means  thing  (a  usage  now  denied  by  eminent  philologists)  nor  truth, 
which,  as  we  have  already  seen,  would  be  irrelevant  in  this  connec¬ 
tion,  but,  must  be  taken  in  its  strict  and  proper  sense  of  something 
spoken,  as  appears  further  from  the  added  words,  by  (or  through')  the 
mouth  of  God.  Proceeding,  coming  (or  going)  out,  i.  e.  uttered  or 
pronounced,  whether  in  the  wa}^  of  precept  or  decree  or  promise. 
(Compare  Num.  30, 12.  Deut.  23,  23.  Juclg,  11,  30).  It  has  been  icritten, 
long  ago,  and  still  remains  on  record  (see  above,  on  2,  5).  By  thus 
appealing  to  the  Scriptures,  Christ  not  only  gives  his  attestation  to 
the  Pentateuch  and  to  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  as  part  of  a  divine 
revelation,  but  instructs  us,  by  example,  in  the  proper  method  of  re¬ 
pelling  such  temptations,  namely  by  opposing  truth  to  error,  and  the 
word  of  God  to  the  suggestions  of  the  Evil  One.  (See  below,  on  vs. 
7.  10). 

5.  Then  the  devil  taketh  him  up  into  the  holy  city, 
and  setteth  him  on  a  pinnacle  of  the  temple, 

Then,  sometimes  loosely  or  indefinitely  used,  but  here,  no  doubt, 
meaning  in  the  next  place,  and  indicating  the  exact  order  of  events, 
which  is  reversed  by  Luke  (4,  5.  9),  in  order  to  accommodate  his  own 
plan  or  purpose,  then  may  also  mean  immediately,  as  in  v.  1  above, 
4^*:- 


.iJ. 


82 


MATTHEW  4,5. 

though  some  suppose  an  interval  between  the  two  temptations,  as  if  he 
had  said,  afterwards^  or  at  another  time,  or  on  a  different  occasion.  It 
has  even  been  imagined  that  this  second  onset  took  place  when  our  Sa¬ 
viour  was  returning  from  the  desert  to  Jerusalem.  But  this,  though 
possible,  is  not  the  natural  impression  made  upon  most  readers,  who 
regard  the  temptations  as  immediately  successive.  Takes  Mm  along 
(or  with  him),  in  his  company,  a  verb  of  frequent  use  in  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament,  and  always,  when  applied  to  persons,  in  the  same  sense,  with¬ 
out  any  necessary  implication  of  coercion,  or  even  of  authority, 
though  one  or  both  may  sometimes  be  suggested  by  the  context.'''*" 
Here,  however,  there  is  nothing  to  imply  compulsion,  and  the  verb 
means  merely  that  they  went  together,  but  at  Satan’s  instance,  which 
is  no  more  inconsistent  with  our  Lord’s  divine  or  human  dignity,  than 
his  submitting  to  be  scourged  and  crucified  by  Satan’s  agents.  In 
either  case  it  was  a  part  of  his  voluntary  humiliation  as  a  Saviour  and 
a  substitute,  the  height  or  depth  of  which  consisted  not  in  his  permit¬ 
ting  Satan  to  conduct  him  from  place  to  place,  but  in  submitting  to  be 
tempted  by  him. — The  DeHl^  slanderer,  or  false  accuser  (see  above,  on 
4,  1).  ZTp,  though  not  in  the  original,  is  found  in  all  the  English  ver¬ 
sions  except  Wiclif’s.  Into  the  holy  city^  i.  e.  Jerusalem,  so  called  be¬ 
cause  it  was  the  seat  of  the  theocracy  and  sanctuary,  or  as  our  Lord 
himself  expressed  it  afterwards,  “  the  city  of  the  Great  King  ”  (see 
below,  on  5,  35).  There  is  nothing  here  to  intimate  a  visionary  or 
ideal  journey,  but  the  natural  impression  made  is  that  of  a  corporeal 
external  entrance  from  without,  perhaps  directly  from  the  wilderness 
or  desert.  Sets  him^  literally,  stands  him.  i.  e.  makes  him  stand,  but 
here  again  without  implying  force  or  authoritjq  the  essential  notion 
being  that  of  causing  him  to  stand,  but  whether  by  request  or  other¬ 
wise,  is  not  expressed  (see  below,  on  18.  2.  25,  33).  A  pinnacle,  in 
Greek  the  loing,  supposed  by  some  to  be  the  roof  of  the  temple  itself, 
so  called  from  its  gradual  inclination  upon  either  side,  like  the  folded 
wings  of  a  bird,  perhaps  an  eagle,  which  word  is  itself  applied  thus  in 
Greek  writings.  But  according  to  Josephus,  the  summit  of  the  sa¬ 
cred  edifice  was  armed  with  spikes  to  prevent  birds  from  alighting  on 
it.  A  more  obvious  and  natural  interpretation  gives  to  icing  its  ordi¬ 
nary  sense  in  architecture,  namely,  that  of  a  lateral  projection  from  the 
main  edifice  or  body  of  a  building.  In  this  sense  it  may  be  applied 
either  to  the  vestibule  or  porch  of  the  temple  properly  so  called  (6  ruo^f) 
which  was  higher  than  the  temple  itself,  or  to  one  of  the  vast  porticoes 
or  colonnades  surrounding  the  whole  area  of  the  temple,  two  of  which 
overlooked  deep  valleys,  namcl}^  Solomon’s  porch, J  upon  the  east  side, 
looking  down  into  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat  or  Kedron,  and  the 
Ptoyal  Porch,  upon  the  south  side,  looking  down  into  the  valley  of 
Hinnom.  This  last  is  represented  by  Josephus  as  a  dizzy  height, 
which  would  agree  well  with  the  context  and  the  circumstances  in 

*  See  above,  on  1,20.  24.  2,13.  20.  and  below,  on  12,45.  17,1.  18,16.  20, 
17.  24,40.  41.  26,  37.  27,27. 

t  See  23,16.  17.  21.  35.  26,  61.  27,  5.  40.  51. 

i  See  John  10,  23.  Acts  3, 11.  5,12. 


83 


MATTHEW  4,  5.  G. 

the  case  before  us.  The  temple,  one  of  the  words  so  translated,  and 
denoting  the  whole  sacred  enclosure,  not  the  sanctuary  onlj'-,  but  the 
courts  by  which  it  was  surrounded.* 

6.  And  saith  unto  him,  If  thou  he  the  Son  of  God, 
cast  thyself  down,  for  it  is  written.  He  shall  give  his 
angels  charge  concerning  thee  :  and  in  their  hands  they 
shall  bear  thee  up,  lest  at  any  time  thou  dash  tby  foot 
against  a  stone. 

Here  again  some  suppose  the  sin  to  which  our  Lord  was  tempted 
to  have  been  a  vain  display  of  his  miraculous  power,  not  as  in  the 
other  case  without  spectators,  but  before  the  multitude  who  thronged 
the  courts  of  the  temple,  and  by  whom  he  might  be  recognized  as  the 
Messiah.  But  as  no  such  purpose  is  referred  to  in  the  narrative,  or  in 
our  Lord’s  reply  to  the  temptation,  a  more  probable  interpretation  is 
the  common  one,  which  makes  this  the  converse  of  the  former  case, 
and  as  that  was  a  temptation  to  distrust,  explains  this  as  a  temptation 
to  presumption,  or  a  rash  reliance  upon  God’s  protecting  care  in 
situations  where  he  has  not  promised  it,  and  where  the  danger  is  a 
voluntary  or  a  self-produced  one.  Cast  thyself  down,  from  the 
summit  of  the  temple  to  the  pavement  of  the  court  below,  or  from 
the  lofty  porch  into  the  deep  valley  which  it  overlooked.  This  he  is 
solicited  to  do  without  necessity,  or  fear  of  the  result,  confiding  in 
the  promise  of  divine  protection  and  angelic  care.  As  the  ground 
of  this  rash  confidence,  the  tempter,  borrowing  the  weapon  which 
had  just  disarmed  him,  cites  a  passage  from  the  ninety-first  Psalm 
(vs.  11.  12).  an  inspired  composition,  the  whole  drift  of  which  is  to 
illustrate  the  security  of  those  who  put  their  trust  in  God,  even 
with  reference  to  temporal  calamities.  It  relates  to  the  Messiah,  not 
exclusively,  but  by  way  of  eminence.  The  argument  suggested  is  a 
fortiori,  namely,  that  if  all  God’s  people  are  thus  cared  for,  much 
more  will  his  Son  be.  The  quotation  is  recorded  in  the  words  of  the 
Septuagint  version,  which  is  here  a  correct  transcript  of  the  Hebrew. 
The  plural  {angels)  shows  that  there  is  no  allusion  to  a  guardian  angel 
attending  each  individual  believer,  but  merely  to  the  angels  collec¬ 
tively,  as  “  ministering  spirits,”  the  instrumental  agents  of  God’s  provi¬ 
dential  care  over  his  people  (Heb.  1, 14).  The  promise  here  given 
does  not  extend  to  dangers  rashl}'"  incurred  or  presumptuously  sought, 
and  was  therefore  no  justification  of  the  act  to  which  our  Lord  was 
tempted  by  the  Devil.  That  the  mere  omission  of  the  words,  in  all 
thy  ways,  was  a  part  of  that  temptation,  or  designed  to  wrest  the  passage 
fiom  its  true  sense,  though  a  very  ancient  and  still  prevalent  opinion, 
seems  to  be  a  gratuitous  refinement,  as  our  Lord  himself  makes  no  such 
charge  j  as  the  first  words  of  the  sentence  would  of  course  suggest  the 
rest ;  and  as  ways,  in  the  original,  does  not  mean  ways  of  duty,  but  of 
Providence.  Neither  the  tempter’s  argument  nor  Christs’  reply  to  it 

*  See  below,  on  12,  5.  6.  21, 12.  14.  15.  23.  24, 4.  26,  55. 


84 


/ 


MATTHEW  4,  6.  7.  8. 

would  be  at  all  affected  by  the  introduction  of  the  words  suppressed. 
Bearing  or  carrying  on  the  hands  seems  intended  to  denote  a  tender  care 
like  that  of  nurses,  an  allusion  frequently  found  elsewhere. Lest  at 
any  time  is  all  expressed  in  Greek  by  one  word  (/jirjnoTe),  which  may  also 
be  explained  as  denoting  mere  contingency,  lest  haply  or  hj  clianee.\ 
Dash,  knock,  or  strike,  in  walking,  i.e.  stumble.  Against^  is  twice  ex¬ 
pressed  here  b}’’  the  same  particle  (Trpo's),  once  before  the  verb  and  once 
before  the  noun.  The  stone,,  i.  e.  the  one  which  happens  to  be  lying 
in  the  way.  A  smooth  path  and  unobstructed  walk  is  a  natural  and 
common  figure  for  prosperity  and  safety.  “  Then  (if  thou  keep  wis¬ 
dom  and  discretion)  thou  shalt  walk  in  thy  way  safely,  and  thy  foot 
shall  not  stumble”  (Prov.  3,  23). 

7.  Jesus  said  unto  him^  It  is  written  again,  Thou 
shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy  God. 

Our  Lord  here  uses  the  same  method  of  resistance  as  before,  re¬ 
pelling  the  temptation  by  a  dictum  of  the  Scriptures,  drawn  from  an¬ 
other  passage  of  the  same  book  (Deut.  6, 16).  Ayam,  does  not  mean, 
on  the  contrary  (or  other  hand),  in  reference  to  the  tempter’s  allega¬ 
tion  from  the  Psalms,  but  once  more,  in  another  place,  with  reference 
to  his  first  quotation,  or  to  both  together.  J  Tempt,  not  the  simple 
verb  so  rendered  elsewhere, §  but  an  emphatic  compound  meaning  to 
try  out,  to  draw  out  by  trial,  to  try  thoroughly.  1|  As  applied  to  God, 
it  means  to  put  him  to  the  proof,  to  demand  further  evidence  of  wh.at 
is  clear  already,T[  as  in  this  case  by  requiring  him  to  show  his  watch¬ 
ful  care  by  an  extraordinary  intervention  in  a  case  of  danger  wilfully 
and  needlessly  incurred.  The  precept  has  a  double  edge  or  applica¬ 
tion,  to  the  Saviour,  as  a  reason  why  he  would  not  tempt  God,  and  to 
the  Devil,  as  a  reason  why  he  should  not  tempt  Christ.  As  if  he  had 
said :  I  will  neither  tempt  God  by  presuming  on  his  providence,  nor 
suS'er  you  to  tempt  me  by  presumptuous  solicitation. 

8.  Again,  the  devil  taketh  him  up  into  an  exceeding 
high  mountain,  and  sheweth  him  all  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world,  and  the  glory  of  them. 

Again,  as  in  the  verse  preceding,  although  here  used  to  distin¬ 
guish  not  the  quotations  but  the  temptations  from  each  other.  The 
same  question  here  arises  as  in  v.  5,  with  respect  to  the  interval  be¬ 
tween  the  two  assaults ;  but  here  too  the  impression  made  on  all  un- 

*  See  Num.  11,  12.  Deut.  1,  81.  Tsai.  49,  23.  Acts  13,  18.  1  Th.  2,  7. 

t  See  below,  on  5,  25.  7,  6.  13, 15.  29.  15,  32.  25,  9.  27,  64. 

X  See  below,  on  5,33.  13,44.45.47.  18,19.  19,24.  21,36,  and  compare  Ileb. 
1,  5.  6.  2,13.  4,5.7.  10,30. 

§  See  above,  on  v.  1,  below,  on  16, 1.  19,  3.  22, 18.35. 

I  Compare  its  use  in  Luke  io,  25.  1  Cor.  10,  9. 

^  See  Ex.  17,2.  Isai.  7,12.  Mai.  3,15.  Acts  5,9.  15,10.  1  Cor.  10,9. 


MATTHEW  4,  8.  9. 


85 


biassed  readers  is  no  doubt  that  of  immediate  succession.  Talceth,  i.  e. 
along  or  in  his  company,  precisely  as  in  v.  5.  This  part  of  the  trans¬ 
action  is  supposed  to  have  occurred  in  vision,  even  by  some  who  un¬ 
derstand  what  goes  before  as  literally,  true.  But  such  a  difference  is 
highly  arbitrary  and  unnatural;  nor  is  there  any  more  necessity  for 
such  a  supposition  here  than  in  the  other  cases.  The  very  high  moun¬ 
tain  is  not  named,  and  can  only  be  conjectured.  The  scene  of  this 
temptation  is  supposed  by  some  to  have  been  Nebo  (Dent.  34, 1),  and 
by  others  Tabor  (see  below,  on  17, 1)  ;  but  as  very  high  is  a  compara¬ 
tive  or  relative  expression,  it  may  just  as  well  have  been  the  Mount  of 
Olives  (see  below,  on  21,  1.  24,  3.  26,  30),  immediately  adjacent  to  the 
Holy  City,  or  some  point  in  the  highlands,  between  Jericho  and 
Bethel,  or  in  those  adjacent  to  the  Dead  Sea  (see  above,  on  v.  1,  and  on 
3,  1).  Sheiceth^  causes  him  to  see,  not  upon  a  map  or  picture,  which 
might  just  as  well  have  been  presented  elsewhere;  nor  by  an  optical 
illusion,  which  the  tempter  had  no  right  or  power  to  practise  on  the 
Saviour’s  senses ;  but  either  by  a  voluntaiy  and  miraculous  extension 
of  his  vision  on  his  own  part,  or  by  a  combination  of  sensible  percep¬ 
tion  with  rhetorical  description  {show  being  elsewhere  used  to  express 
both  visual  and  oral  exhibition,  as  in  8,  4.  compared  with  16,  21),  an 
actual  exhibition  of  what  lay  within  the  boundary  of  vision,  and  an 
enumeration  of  the  kingdoms  which  in  different  directions  lay  beyond 
it,  with  a  glowing  representation  of  their  wealth  and  power  {and  the 
glory  of  them).  Upon  either  of  these  latter  suppositions,  all  the 
kingdoms  of  the  world  may  be  strictly  understood,  instead  of  being 
violently  explained  away,  as  meaning  the  different  provinces  of  Pales¬ 
tine,  or  even  of  the  Roman  Empire. 

9.  And  saitli  unto  him,  All  these  things  will  I  give 
thee,  if  thou  wilt  fall  down  and  worship  me. 

Having  thus  exhibited  the  bait,  the  tempter  actually  offers  it. 
These  {things)^  all  {of  them)^  which  1  have  now  shown  or  described  to 
thee,  to  wit,  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  with  their  glory,  i.  e.  all  that 
renders  them  attractive  to  the  love  of  power,  pleasure,  wealth,  and 
honour.  To  thee  will  I  give.^  implying  that  lie  had  a  right  to  do  so, 
not  inherent  but  derivative  (Luke  4,  6).  This  is  not  to  be  regarded  as 
a  sheer  invention,  but  a  statement  at  least  partially  correct,  and  shown 
to  be  so  by  the  frequent  reference  to  Satan  as  the  prince  or  god  of 
this  world  (John  12,  31.  14,  30.  16,  11.  2  Cor.  4,  4).  How  far  this 
delegated  power  extends,  in  what  Avay  it  is  exercised,  and  by  what 
checks  it  is  restrained,  are  questions  which  we  have  not  data  to  deter¬ 
mine,  but  which  cannot  nullify  the  fact  itself  so  clearly  revealed  else¬ 
where.  The  charge  of  simple  falsehood,  therefore,  is  as  groundless 
here  as  that  of  misquotation  in  v.  6,  the  force  of  the  temptation  lying 
deeper  in  both  cases.  The  condition  annexed  to  this  seductive  offer  is 
supposed  by  some  to  be  religious  adoration,  i.  e.  idolatry  or  rather 
devil-worship  ;*  by  others  a  mere  civil  homage  or  acknowledgment  of 

*  See  Lev.  17,  7.  Dcut.  32,  17.  2  Chr.  11,  15.  Ps.  106,  87.  1  Cor.  10,  20.  Rev. 
9,  20. 


86 


MATTHEW  4,9.10. 


sovereignty  (see  above,  on  2,  2.  8.  11).  But  in  this  case  the  tvro  acts 
are  necessaril}'-  coincident  if  not  identical,  as  no  one  does  or  can  pay  al¬ 
legiance  to  the  Devil  as  his  sovereign,  without  making  him  his  god, 
and  worshipping  him  as  such.  The  falling  down  was  merely  the  external 
recognition  of  his  right  to  this  two-fold  homage.  The  sin  to  which  our 
Lord  is  here  solicited  is  not  a  simple  but  a  complex  one,  including  secu¬ 
lar  ambition  and  idolatry,  not  only  that  covetousness  which  is  idolatry 
(Col.  3,  5),  but  also  apostasy  from  God  as  the  true  sovereign  and  the 
only  object  of  religious  adoration,  and  the  substitution  of  his  most 
malignant  enemy  in  both  these  characters.  To  this  same  complicated 
sin,  the  ancient  Israel  was  tempted,  and  with  a  very  dilfcrent  result 
(Lev.  17.  7.  Deut.  32, 17). 

10.  Then  saith  Jesus  unto  him,  Get  thee  hence,  Sa¬ 
tan  :  for  it  is  written.  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy 
God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve. 

Then,  as  in  vs.  1,  5,  corresponding  to  again  in  vs.  7,  8,  both  mean¬ 
ing  once  more,  and  marking  repetition  and  succession.  Get  thee  hence, 
in  Greek  a  single  yvovdi{vTrayc-apage!)hegone,  avaunt,  out  of  my  sight! 
a  strong  expression  of  abhorrence,  not  only  for  the  person  of  the 
tempter,  but  particularly  for  the  impious  audacity  of  his  last  tempta¬ 
tion.  Some  of  the  old  manuscripts  and  late  editions  add  behind  me, 
which  is  probably,  however,  an  interpolation  from  IG,  23  below.  Sa¬ 
tan,  adversar3%  enemy  of  God  and  Man,  in  which  light  he  had  now  un¬ 
masked  himself,  and  is  therefore  here  addressed  by  name,  as  well  as 
driven  from  the  Saviour’s  presence.  This  climax  both  in  the  tempta¬ 
tion  and  in  the  repulse,  may  serve  to  show  that  Matthew’s  order  is  that 
of  the  occurrences  themselves,  whatever  may  have  been  Luke’s  reason 
for  inverting  it  (see  above,  on  v.  5).  But  not  content  with  naming  the 
tempter  and  bidding  him  begone,  our  Lord  once  more  opposes  scripture 
to  his  vile  solicitations,  drawing  still  upon  tlie  same  part  of  the  Penta¬ 
teuch,  as  if  to  put  peculiar  honour  in  advance  upon  a  l)Ook  which  was 
to  be  especially  assailed  by  modern  infidelity.  The  passage  is  found 
in  Deut.  0,  13,  and  is  here  given  in  the  words  of  the  Septuagint  version. 
Alone  is  not  expressed  in  the  original  passage,  but  is  necessarily  sug¬ 
gested  by  the  context,  and  is  therefore  introduced  not  only  in 
the  Ixx.  version,  but  by  Josephus  and  by  Aben  Ezra,  one  of  the 
most  famous  of  the  rabbins  (see  also  1  Sam.  7,  3).  Seme,  a  verb  used 
in  classic  Greek  to  signify  mercenary  labour,  work  for  hire,  but  in 
Hellenistic  usage  transferred  to  religious  service.  The  distinction 
w'hich  the  Church  of  Borne  would  make  between  this  and  the  lower 
service  which  she  pays  to  images,  is  utterly  precluded  by  the  text  be¬ 
fore  us,  which  prohibits  not  latreia  merely,  but  even  proscynesis,  to  be 
paid  to  any  other  object  than  to  God  alone.  This  scripture  also  has  a 
double  edge  or  application,  as  if  he  had  said:  Mnstead  of  being  asked 
to  worship  thee,  I  am  entitled  to  be  worshipped  by  thee.’ 


MATTHEW  4,  11.  12. 


87 


11.  Then  the  devil  leaveth  him,  and  behold,  angels 
came  and  ministered  unto  him. 

Then^  after  the  conclusion  of  this  last  assault  and  its  repulse, 
Leaxeth  Jiirn^  or  letteth  him  (alone),  the  Greek  verb  used  above  in  3, 
15,  and  there  explained.  The  idea  here  expressed  is  not  that  of  mere 
locomotion  or  departure,  but  of  cessation  from  disturbance  and  annoy¬ 
ance,  not  forever  but  until  a  a  future  time  (Luke  4,  13).  The  departure 
of  the  Devil  coincides  with  the  appearance  or  return  of  holy  angels, 
who  would  seem  to  have  withdrawn  during  this  mysterious  conllict, 
that  the  honour  of  the  triumph  might  be  Christ’s  alone.  Game,  lite¬ 
rally,  came  or  came  to  {him),  which  naturally,  although  not  neces¬ 
sarily,  suggests  the  idea  of  a  visible  appearance.  Ministered,  or  as  the 
Greek  specifically  signifies,  waited  on  him,  served  him,  with  particular 
reference  to  food.*  This  angelic  ministration  is  in  contrast  both  with 
the  Satanic  onset  and  with  the  abstinence  and  hunger  which  preceded 
it.  From  the  privations  of  the  desert  and  the  solicitations  of  the  devil, 
the  transition  was  immediate  to  the  society  and  help  of  angels. 


12.  ITow  when  Jesus  bad  beard  that  John  was  cast 
into  prison,  be  departed  into  Gralilee. 

Having  thus  recorded  the  preliminaries  of  the  Saviour’s  ministry, 
Matthew  now  proceeds  to  the  ministry  itself,  which  he  seems,  hke 
Mark  and  Luke,  to  describe  as  beginning  in  Galilee,  the  northern  prov¬ 
ince  of  the  land  of  Israel,  divided  from  Judea  by  the  district  of  Samaria 
(see  above,  on  2,  22).  But  we  learn  from  John  (1,  19-52,  2, 13-25. 
3, 1-3C.  4, 1-42),  that  he  was  publicly  recognized  by  his  forerunner, 
and  began  his  own  work,  in  Judea.  This  has  been  malevolently  rep¬ 
resented  as  a  contradiction ;  but  in  neither  of  the  first  three  gospels  is 
it  expressly  said  that  this  was  absolutely  his  first  appearance  as  a 
public  teacher,  but  only  that  he  now  appeared  as  such  in  Galilee. 
Matthew,  moreover,  as  well  as  IMark  (1,  14),  explicitly  confines  his 
narrative  to  what  happened  after  John’s  imprisonment,  leaving  room 
at  least  for  the  assumption  that  something  previous  is  omitted  because 
not  included  in  the  writer’s  plan.  Luke  too  speaks  of  Jesus  as  return¬ 
ing  to  Galilee  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit  (Luke  4,  14),  i.  e,  of  the  same 
Spirit  who  had  prompted  and  directed  his  official  functions  elsewhere. 
The  only  question  is  why  the  first  three  gospels  should  have  omitted 
what  took  place  in  Judea,  and  begun  with  his  appearance  in  Galilee. 
A  sufficient  answer  seems  to  be,  that  his  appearance  in  Judea  was  in¬ 
tended  merely  to  connect  his  ministry  with  that  of  John,  by  letting  the 
two  co-exist  or  overlap  each  other,  like  the  two  dispensations  which 
they  represented.  As  the  forms  of  the  INIosaic  law  were  still  continued 
in  existence,  long  after  they  were  virtually  superseded  by  the  advent 
of  Messiah  and  the  organization  of  his  kingdom,  as  if  to  show  that  the 

*  See  below,  on  8, 15.  25,44.  27,55.  and  compare  Luke  10,40.  12,37.  17,  8. 
22, 27.  John  12,  2.  Acts  C,  2.  Ileb.  6, 10, 


88 


MATTHEW  4, 12.  13. 


t^vo  systems,  although  incompatible  and  exclusive  of  each  other  as  per¬ 
manent  institutions,  were  identical  in  origin,  authority,  and  purpose, 
the  one  being  not  the  rival  or  the  opposite,  but  simply  the  completion 
of  the  other;  so  our  Lord,  whose  presence  was  to  supersede  the  minis¬ 
try  of  John,  appeared  for  a  time  in  conjunction  with  him,  and  received 
his  first  disciples  from  him  (John  1,  37),  as  a  proof  that  John  had  only 
begun  the  work  which  Clirist  was  to  accomplish.  "Wben  this  joint  min¬ 
istry,  if  it  may  be  so  called,  was  terminated  by  the  imprisonment  of 
John,  our  Lord  retired  or  retreated  into  Galilee,  where  he  had  been 
brought  up,  and  where  he  was  to  be  rejected  by  his  neighbours  and 
acquaintances,  as  well  as  to  perform  the  greater  part  of  his  prophetic 
functions.  The  imprisonment  of  John  is  barely  mentioned  here,  as 
suggesting  the  time  and  the  occasion  of  our  Lord’s  w’ithdrawing  from 
Judea,  the  events  which  led  to  the  imprisonment  itself,  being  reserved 
by  Matthew  for  another  place  (see  below,  on  14,  3-5).  Ilearing  or 
having  heard^  seems  to  imply  that  he  was  at  some  distance  from  the 
place  of  John’s  arrest  or  seizure.  Cast  into  prison  is  more  correctly 
rendered  in  the  margin,  delivered  up^  i.  e.  by  Herod  to  the  jailer  (com¬ 
pare  Luke  12,  58.  Acts  8,  3.  22,  4),  or  by  Providence  to  Herod  himself 
(compare  Acts  2,  23).  Departed,  the  verb  used  in  2, 12.  13. 14.  22. 
above,  and  corresponding  more  exactly  to  withdrew,  retreated.  It  does 
not  necessarily  denote  escape  from  danger,  as  in  the  places  just  referred 
to,  where  that  idea  is  suggested  by  the  context.  It  is  here  precluded 
by  the  statement  that  our  Saviour  went  directly  into  Herod’s  jurisdic¬ 
tion,  and  that  his  danger  in  Judea  could  not  be  increased  b}^  John’s 
imprisonment.  The  meaning  rather  is  that  he  "withdrew  from  Judea, 
where  his  ministry  had  already  roused  the  jealous  party  spirit  of  the 
Pharisees  (John  4,  1).  into  Galilee,  where  John’s  removal  left  an  open 
field  for  Christ’s  own  ministry  and  missionary  labours.  It  is  unneces¬ 
sary  therefore  to  take  Galilee  in  the  specific  sense  of  Upper  Galilee,  or 
as  denoting  any  other  portion  of  the  province  as  distinguished  from 
the  rest ;  Avhich  would  be  perfectly  gratuitous  and  contrary  to  usage, 
as  well  as  inconsistent  with  the  context,  which  requires  Galilee  to  be 
contrasted,  not  with  itself  or  any  part  of  itself,  but  with  the  other 
provinces  of  Palestine. 

13.  And  leaving  Nazareth,  he  came  and  dwelt  in 
Capernaum,  which  is  upon  the  sea-coast,  in  the  borders 
of  Zabulon  and  Nephthalim, 

Leaving  ITazareth,  which  had  been  his  home  since  his  return  in  in¬ 
fancy  from  Egypt  (see  above,  on  2,  21-23),  and  which  might  have 
been  expected  to  become  the  seat  and  centre  of  his  operations.  With¬ 
out  explaining  why  this  expectation  was  not  realized,  as  Luke  does 
most  minutely  (4,  1G--31),  Matthew  hurries  on  to  speak  of  his  settle¬ 
ment  at  Capernaum,  in  which  a  signal  prophecy  was  verified.  Com¬ 
ing  (or  having  come)  is  not  a  pleonastic  or  superfluous  expression,  but 
a  distinct  statement  of  the  fact,  that  he  not  only  went  to  Capernaum, 


MATTHEW  4,13.14. 


89 


as  he  often  did  at  other  times,  but  took  up  his  abode  there.  JDwelt^ 
or  rather  settled^  the  Greek  verb  denoting  an  incipient  residence  (as  in 
4.  13.  12,  45.  Luke  11,  26.  Acts  7,2.  4j,  whether  eventually  perma¬ 
nent  (as  in  Acts  9,  32.  17,  26),  or  temporary  (as  in  Ileb.  11,  9). 
What  is  here  recorded  is  our  Lord’s  adoption  of  Capernaum  instead 
of  Nazareth,  as  the  centre  of  his  ministry,  from  which  he  went  forth 
on  his  missions  or  official  journeys  (see  below,  on  v.  23).  Gai^ernamn 
the  maritime,  in  Greek  an  adjective  denoting  what  is  on  or  by  the  sea, 
as  correctly  paraphrased  but  not  translated  in  the  English  Bible.  It 
is  so  called,  not  to  distinguish  it  from  any  other  place  of  the  same 
name,  for  no  such  place  is  known  to  have  existed,  as  in  the  case  of 
Bethlehem  (see  above,  on  2,  1.  6),  but  because  its  situation  was  im¬ 
portant  to  identify  it  as  the  subject  of  the  prophecy  recited  in  the  fol¬ 
lowing  verses.  Capernaum  itself  is  no  longer  in  existence,  and  its 
very  site  is  now  a  subject  of  dispute;  but  Dr.  Robinson  has  clearly 
shown  that  it  was  always  understood  to  be  marked  by  a  village  now 
called  Khan  Minyeh,  till  the  17th  century,  when  travellers  began  to 
seek  it  at  a  place  called  Tell  Houm  an  hour  further  to  the  north-east, 
but  with  nothing  to  support  its  claims  except  a  very  faint  resemblance 
to  the  ancient  name.  This  was  variously  written,  Cupharnaum,  Ce- 
pharnome,  Caparnaum,  Capernaum,  &c.  The  place  is  not  named  in 
the  Old  Testament,  which  probably,  though  not  necessarily,  implies  a 
later  origin.  Josephus  mentions  the  town  once  by  the  name  of  Ce- 
pharnome,  but  applies  the  form  Capernaum  (or  Capharnaum)  only  to 
a  fountain.  The  most  probable  site  of  the  city  was  near  the  northern 
edge  of  the  small  but  fertile  district  called  Gennesaret*  on  the  east¬ 
ern  shore  of  the  lake  which  forms  the  eastern  boundary  of  Galilee, 
and  through  which  the  Jordan  passes  (see  above,  on  3,  6,  and  below, 
on  V.  18).  Borders,  or  boundaries,  in  Scripture  sometimes  means  the 
region  bounded,  or  the  area  within  the  borders  ;t  but  the  same  town 
could  not  be  within  two  tribes,  except  b}'  being  on  their  confines  or 
borders  in  the  strict  sense.  Zahulon  and  Neyhthalim  are  slight  modifi¬ 
cations  of  Zebulon  and  Naphtali,  the  names  of  two  of  Jacob’s  sons 
(Gen.  30,  8.  20),  and  of  the  tribes  descended  from  them  (Num.  1,  8. 
9).  The  precise  bounds  of  the  territory  occupied  by  these  tribes  can¬ 
not  now  be  ascertained ;  but  what  is  known  from  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  agrees  exactly  wdth  the  language  of  the  verse  before 
us.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  were  contiguous  and  settled  in 
the  northern  part  of  the  country.  (Josh.  19,  10-16.  32-39),  and  the 
later  Jewish  books  represents  the  Sea  of  Galilee  as  belonging  or  adja¬ 
cent  to  the  tribe  of  Naphtali.  The  design  of  this  minute  topographi¬ 
cal  description  of  Capernaum,  as  situated  on  the  sea  and  also  on  th® 
confines  of  these  two  tribes,  is  disclosed  in  the  next  verse. 

14.  That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  bj 
Esaias  the  prophet,  saying, 

*  See  below,  on  14,  34.  and  compare  Mark  6,  53.  Luke  5, 1. 

t  See  above,  on  2,  io.  and  below,  on  8,34.  15,  22.  89.  19,1. 


90 


MATTHEW  4,  14.  15. 


The  formula  here  used  is  the  same  with  that  in  1,  22.  but  without 
the  prefatory  phrase,  all  this  came  to  pass  (or  happened),  and  with  a 
distinct  mention  of  the  prophet’s  name.  The  passage  quoted  is  still 
extant  in  Isaiah  (8,  23.  9,  1).  from  whose  text  it  is  here  translated  into 
Greek,  and  not  borrowed  from  the  Septuagint  version,  which  is  ex¬ 
ceedingly  corrupt,  and  in  some  points  wholly  unintelligible.  This  is 
the  lilth  prophecy  alleged  by  IMatthew  to  have  been  fulfilled  in  the 
life  of  Christ  (see  above,  on  1,  22.  2,  15.  17.23),  besides  the  one  implic¬ 
itly  applied  to  him  in  2,  C.  It  is  no  doubt  with  a  view  to  this  fulfil¬ 
ment  that  our  Lord’s  removal  to  Capernaum  is  so  distinctly  stated, 
although  other  circumstances,  in  themselves  of  more  importance,  are 
omitted  (see  above,  on  v.  12,  and  on  2,  22).  The  words  quoted  from 
Isaiah  are  the  close  of  a  prophetic  passage,  in  which  the  old  theocracy 
is  threatened  with  divine  judgments,  to  be  afterwards  succeeded  by 
extraordinary  favour,  to  be  specially  experienced  by  that  part  of  the 
country  which  had  suffered  most  in  the  preceding  trials.  The  evan¬ 
gelist  cites  only  what  was  necessary  to  his  purpose,  beginning  with 
the  last  words  of  a  sentence,  which  he  introduces  to  identify  the  sub¬ 
ject  and  describe  the  scene,  in  order  to  connect  it  with  the  local  habi¬ 
tation  of  the  Saviour. 

15.  The  land  of  Zabuloiij  and  the  land  of  Nephtha- 
lim,  (by)  the  way  of  the  sea,  beyond  Jordan,  Galilee  of 
the  Gentiles. 

Land  (^of)  Zebulon  and  land  (of)  Naphtali  may  be  taken,  either 
as  nominatives  or  vocatives.  In  the  former  case,  there  is  an  absolute 
construction  of  the  noun  without  a  verb,  equivalent  in  sense  but  not 
in  form  to  our  phrase  {as  to)  the  land  of  Zabulon^  &c.  On  the  other 
supposition,  the  form  is  that  of  an  apostrophe  addressed  to  those  two 
regions.  {Oh)  land  of  Zebulon,  &c.  The  question  is  entirely  gram¬ 
matical,  without  effect  upon  the  meaning  of  the  sentence,  as  this  clause 
is  only  introduced  to  show  of  what  region  the  prophet  was  speaking. 
Way  of  the  sea,^  is  not  in  apposition  with  these  phrases,  xoay  being  in 
the  accusative  case  (65oi/),  and  according  to  the  usual  construction, 
governed  by  a  preposition  understood  (Kara),  as  expressed  in  the  Eng¬ 
lish  version  (by  laay^  i.  e.  near,  adjacent  to).  Some  understand  it  to 
mean  that  Capernaum  was  on  the  way  to  the  sea^  i.  e.  the  Mediterra¬ 
nean  ;  but  the  previous  description  of  it"  as  upon  the  sea  (in  v.  13), 
requires  sea  to  be  here  taken  in  the  same  sense  as  denoting  the  sea  of 
Galilee.  Beyond  is  in  Hebrew  a  noun  originally  meaning  passage  or 
crossing,^  then  the  side  or  bank  of  a  stream,  whether  tb.e  nearer  or  the 
further  side.  In  the  Old  Testament  it  usually  means  the  country 
east  of  Jordan,  but  in  some  cases  no  less  certainly  the  west  side.*  As 
here  used,  it  is  understood  by  some  to  mean  the  country  east  of  Jor¬ 
dan  (called  in  Greek  Percea),  and  to  describe  a  diflerent  tract  from 
those  mentioned  in  the  previous  clauses.  But  more  piobably  it 

*  Compare  Num.  32,19.  32.  34,15.  Josh.  1,14.  15.  with  Deut.  11,30.  Josh. 

r,7.  12,1. 


MATTHEW  4,15.16. 


91 


means  the  country  lying  along  Jordan,  on  the  west  side,  and  is  in  ap¬ 
position  to  what  goes  before,  i.  e.  descriptive  of  the  same  tract  or  re¬ 
gion,  namely,  the  land  of  Zebulon  and  Haphtali,  which  was  partly 
adjacent  to  the  Sea  of  Galilee  and  partly  to  the  river  Jordan.  Gali¬ 
lee  of  the  Gentiles^  a  name  given  to  the  northern  part  of  Galilee,  on 
account  of  its  proximity  to  the  Syrians  and  Phenicians,  or  perhaps  an 
actual  mixture  of  the  population. 

16.  The  people  which  sat  in  darkness,  saw  great 
light  ;  and  to  them  which  sat  in  the  region  and  shadow 
of  death,  light  is  sprung  up. 

The  people^  not  a  plural  meaning  persons,  but  a  singular  denoting 
a  community  or  nation,  here  that  portion  of  the  Jews  who  were  set¬ 
tled  in  Galilee.  The  {people)  sitting^  not  merely  being,  but  continuing, 
dwelling,  yet  with  due  regard  to  the  metaphor  or  image,  drawn  from 
a  sedentary  posture,  as  implying  permanent  inaction.  DarJeness^  a  fa¬ 
miliar  figure  in  the  dialect  of  Scripture,  not  only  for  intellectual  evils, 
such  as  ignorance  and  error,  but  for  the  moral  depravity  and  the 
misery  resulting  from  them.  Saio  or  {have  seen)^  a  prophetical  de¬ 
scription  of  the  change,  which  although  future  when  Isaiah  wrote,  was 
absolutely  certain,  and  when  Matthew  wrote  actually  past.  Lights  a 
metaphor  answering  to  darhness,  and  of  course  denoting  its  opposite 
or  converse,  intellectual  and  moral.  The  ideas  necessarily  included 
are  those  of  truth,  knowledge,  moral  purity,  and  happiness.*  Great 
light^  i.  e.  bearing  due  proportion  to  the  darkness  which  it  scattered ; 
alight  sufficient  to  dispel  the  thickest  darkness,  intellectual  and  moral, 
such  as  that  described  in  the  foregoing  sentence.  The  strong  terms  of 
this  first  clause  become  stronger  still  in  that  which  follows.  To  those 
(or  to  the  persons)  sitting  (i.  e.  inactively  and  hclplessl}''  remaining)  in 
the  (very)  region  (place  or  country)  and  shadoio  of  death^  a  much 
more  emphatic  form  of  speech  than  darhness^  though  intended  to  ex¬ 
press  the  same  essential  meaning.  Region  and  shadow  of  death  may 
either  be  explained  as  independent  figures,  meaning  region  of  death 
and  shadow  of  deaths  or  as  an  instance  of  the  figure  called  hendiadys, 
equivalent  to  region  of  the  shadow  of  deatf  i.  e.  the  place  or  region 
where  his  shadow  falls.  According  to  the  other  construction,  the  two 
ideas  are  suggested  of  death’s  region  (where  he  dwells  or  reigns)  and 
his  shadow  (the  darkness  which  he  produces).  In  either  case  the  main 
idea  is  that  of  the  profoundest  shade,  such  as  belongs  to  death,  as  its 
ellect  or  its  precursor.  Even  to  such  light  arose  (or  sprung  up)  in  the 
prophet’s  view  as  future,  and  in  the  evangelist’s  as  past.  The  Greek 
verb  is  the  one  corresponding  to  the  noun  translated  east  in  2,  1.  2.  9. 
and  rising  elsewhere  (Rev.  7,  2.  16,  12).  It  is  specially  appropriated 
to  the  rise  of  heavenly  bodies.f  although  sometimes  otherwise  ap- 

*  See  Job.  80,26.  Ps.  112,4.  Ecc.  2,13.  Isai.  5,20.  4-2,16.  45,7.  50,10.  John 
1,  5.  Acts  26, 18.  Rom.  13, 12.  1  Pet.  2,  9.  1  John  1,  5.  2,  8. 

t  See  below,  on  5,45.  13,  6,  and  compare  Mark  16,  2.  Jas.  1, 11.  2  Pet.  1, 19. 


92 


MATTHEW  4,  IG.  17. 


plied  (Luke  12,  54.  Heb.  7,  14).  The  verse  in  its  original  connection 
has  respect  to  the  degraded  and  oppressed  state  of  the  Galileans,  aris¬ 
ing  from  their  situation  on  the  frontier,  their  exposure  to  attacks  fiom 
without,  and  their  actual  mixture  with  the  Gentiles.  The  same  de¬ 
scription  is  transferred  by  Matthew  to  the  spiritual  darkness  which 
they  shared  in  common  with  the  other  Jews,  and  the  peculiar  igno¬ 
rance  with  which  the  other  Jews  reproached  them  (John  7,  41.  49. 
52).  That  the  Galileans  were  in  fact  more  barbarous,  corrupt,  and 
ignorant,  though  often  said,  is  neither  susceptible  of  proof  nor  intrin¬ 
sically  probable,  as  their  intercourse  with  strangers  tended  rather  to 
improve  them,  and  the  ancient  writers  represent  them  as  a  turbulent 
and  martial  race,  but  not  as  peculiarly  or  grossly  wicked.  Yet  even 
their  alleged  inferiority  in  mind  and  morals  made  it  more  remarkable 
that  it  was  among  them,  in  this  remote  and  relatively  dark  part  of  the 
country,  that  the  great  Prophet  or  Revealer  manifested  forth  his  glory 
(John  2,  11).  Nay,  it  was  in  the  very  midst  of  this  benighted  or  ca¬ 
lumniated  region,  that  he  fixed  the  seat  of  his  prophetic  ministry,  not 
indeed  at  Nazareth,  but  at  Capernaum. 

17.  From  tliat  time  Jesus  began  to  preach,  and  to 
say,  Eepent ;  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand. 

From  that  time^  i.  e.  the  time  mentioned  in  v.  12,  the  time  of  John’s 
arrest,  and  the  consequent  cessation  of  his  ministry.  The  words  are 
not  intended  to  define  the  date  with  chronological  precision,  but  to 
draw  the  line  by  which  the  public  work  or  the  official  life  of  Christ 
w^as  bounded  in  relation  to  the  previous  or  preparatory  ministry  of 
J ohn  the  Baptist.  The  essential  fact  is  not  one  of  chronology  but  histo¬ 
ry.  to  wit,  that  one  opened  when  the  other  closed,  which  is  perfectly  con¬ 
sistent  with  the  visible  and  temporary  co-existence,  previously  men¬ 
tioned  as  evincing  their  identity  of  origin,  authority  and  purpose  (see 
above,  on  v.  12).  And  accordingly  we  find  that  in  the  apostolical  his¬ 
tory  the  public  life  of  Christ,  is  measured  or  computed  from  ‘‘  the 
baptism  (i.  e.  from  the  ministry)  of  John.”"*^  But  besides  this  chrono¬ 
logical  succession  between  John  and  Jesus,  there  was  also  an  extraor¬ 
dinary  sameness  in  the  subject  or  the  substance  of  their  preaching,  as 
described  in  3,  2.  and  the  verse  before  us.  Both  are  in  fact  described 
as  uttering  the  same  call  to  repentance  and  presenting  the  same  mo¬ 
tive,  namely,  the  approach  of  the  Messiah’s  kingdom.  (For  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  all  these  expressions,  see  above,  on  3,  2).  But  that  this  was 
only  the  beginning,  not  the  whole,  of  our  Lord’s  preaching,  is  ex¬ 
pressly  intimated  here  by  saying,  he  began  to  preach.  In  other  words, 
what  constituted  John’s  whole  message  was  but  the  beginning  of  his 
own.  He  took  it  up  where  his  forerunner  laid  it  down,  resumed  the 
thread  where  it  had  seemed  to  be  abruptly  broken  by  the  violence  of 
Herod,  but  only,  if  we  may  so  say,  to  spin  it  out  indefinitely  further. 
So  far  then  is  the  preaching  ou  official  proclamation  of  the  two  divine 

*  See  below,  on  21,  25,  and  compare  Acts  1, 22.  10, 87.  18, 25.  19, 3.  4. 


MATTHEW  4,17.18. 


93 


messengers  from  being  here  described  as  co-cxtensive,  that  the  very 
opposite  is  really  suggested  by  the  statement  that  our  Lord  legan 
where  John  had  ended.  This  view  of  the  passage  sweeps  away  all 
pretext  for  regarding  the  'began  as  pleonastic  or  superfluous,  as  well  as 
the  opposite  extreme  of  making  it  mean  more  than  it  does  or  legiti¬ 
mately  can,  to  wit,  that  he  began  afresh,  began  a  second  time,  began 
in  Galilee,  &c.  We  have  seen  already  that  his  earlier  appearance  in 
Judea,  although  full  of  striking  incidents  and  proofs  of  his  divine  le¬ 
gation,  was  preliminary  to  his  ministiy  or  preaching,  properly  so 
called,  which  now  began,  when  he  resumed  and  carried  on  the  inter¬ 
rupted  work  of  John,  and  became  as  it  were  for  a  time  his  own  fore¬ 
runner,  or  acted  as  the  herald  of  himself  as  king.  By  this  arrange¬ 
ment,  though  at  first  sight  paradoxical  or  accidental,  the  precise  rela¬ 
tion  of  John’s  ministry  to  that  of  Christ  was  more  distinctly  set  forth 
than  it  could  have  been  if  ho  had  ended  his  preparatory  work  before 
his  principal  apjDeared  at  all,  leaving  a  doubtful  interval  between 
them,  or  if,  on  the  other  hand,  our  Lord  had  fully  entered  on  his  own 
work  during  John’s  captivity,  thus  holding  up  the  two  together  in  a 
kind  of  rivalry  or  competition. 

18.  And  Jesus,  walking  by  the  sea  of  Galilee,  saw 
two  brethren,  Simon  called  Peter,  and  Andrew  bis 
brother,  casting  a  net  into  the  sea  ;  for  they  were  fishers. 

Although  it  formed  no  part  of  our  Lord’s  personal  mission  upon 
earth  to  re-organize  the  church,  a  change  which  was  to  rest  upon 
his  own  atoning  death  as  its  foundation,  and  must  therefore  be  pos¬ 
terior  to  it,  he  prepared  the  way  for  this  great  revolution  by  selecting 
and  training  those  who  should  accomplish  it.  This  process  was  a 
gradual  one,  beginning  with  the  first  introduction  or  acquaintance,  fol¬ 
lowed  up  by  an  express  call  to  personal  attendance,  and  resulting  in 
the  ultimate  formation  of  the  persons  thus  selected  into  an  organic 
body  of  Apostles.  Passing  by  the  first  steps  of  this  gradual  vocation, 
which  were  afterwards  supplied  in  part  by  John  (1,  35-52),  the  other 
three  evangelists  proceed  at  once  to  the  second,  the  actual  vocation  of 
the  first  Apostles  to  be  followers  or  personal  attendants  of  the  Saviour. 
Hence  they  are  naturally  spoken  of  as  if  before  unknown  to  him, 
though  not  expressly  so  described,  and  therefore  in  agreement  with 
the  previous  occurrences  preserved  in  John’s  supplementary  account, 
but  not  included  in  the  plan  and  purpose  of  the  other  gospels.  IFall'- 
ing  about^  not  listlessly  or  idly,  but  no  doubt  in  the  performance  of  his 
work  as  a  proclaimer  or  announcer  of  the  kingdom.  By  (or  along) 
the  Sea  of  Qalilee^  the  lake  through  which  the  Jordan  flows,  along  tlie 
east  side  of  the  province  so  called  (see  above,  on  3,  5.  4,  13).  This 
use  of  the  word  sea,  though  lost  in  modern  English,  is  retained  in 
German  {See)  with  specific  reference  to  inland  lakes.  It  is  here, 
how'ever,  the  exact  translation  of  the  Greek  word  (3dX«fTo-ar),  whicly 
in  classical  usage  is  applied  both  to  lakes  and  oceans.  The  one  here 


94 


MATTHEW  4,18. 


meant  if?  also  called  Gennesnret  (Luke  5,  1),  in  Hebrew  Cinnereth 
(Deut.  3,  17),  or  Gmnerotli{\  Kings  15,  20),  fi-om  a  city  and  a  district 
on  the  western  shore.  (See  above,  on  v.  13,  and  compare  Josh,  19, 
35.  Num.  34,  11).  A  third  name  is  the  sea  (or  lake)  of  Tiberias,  from 
a  city  built  by  Herod  on  the  south-west  shoie,  and  named  in  honour 
of  the  Emperor  Tiberius.  (See  John  6, 1.  21,  1).  The  lake  is  about 
twelve  miles  long  and  half  as  many  wide,  in  a  deep  basin  surrounded 
b}^  hills.  It  is  still  famous,  as  of  old,  for  its  clear  pure  water,  abun¬ 
dant  fish,  and  frequent  storms.  From  among  the  fishermen  on  this 
lake  Christ  selected  his  first  followers,  four  of  whom  are  here  named, 
being  two  pairs  of  brothers.  Simon^  a  later  form  of  Simeon  (Gen,  29, 
33),  which,  however,  is  sometimes  retained  in  reference  to  the  same 
and  other  persons  (Luke  2,  25.  3,30.  Acts  13,1.  15,14.  2  Pet.  1,  1. 
Rev.  7,  7).  The  {one)  called  Peter i.  e.  not  only  the  person  so  called, 
but  the  Simon  so  called,  to  distinguish  him  from  others  of  the  same 
name,  which  was  very  common.  This  second  name  or  surname  had 
its  origin,  however,  not  in  accident  or  popular  usage,  but  in  the  wmrds 
of  Christ  himself  when  Simon  was  first  brought  into  his  presence  by 
his  brother  Andrew  (John  1,  43).  The  name  Cephas  then  imposed  is 
the  Aramaic  synonyme  of  the  Greek  Petros^  both  denoting  a  rock  or 
stone.  This  is  sometimes  explained  as  having  reference  to  Peter’s 
constancy  and  firmness  j  but  these  are  attributes  in  which  he  was  re¬ 
markably  deficient,  not  only  in  his  immature  or  pupillary  state  (see 
below,  on  26,  40.  75),  but  even  after  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit,  as  ap¬ 
pears  from  a  remarkable  incident  preserved  in  one  of  Paul’s  epistles 
(Gal,  2,  11),  His  true  characteristics  were  ardor  and  boldness,  often 
degenerating  into  rashness  and  a  blind  self-confidence  (see  below,  on 
14.  28.  16,  22.  26,  33-35) ;  but  these  are  not  suggested  by  the  figure 
of  a  stone  or  rock.  It  is,  therefore,  a  more  probable  opinion,  that  he 
was  so  called  as  the  first  stone  in  the  Apostolic  basis  or  foundation 
which  our  Lord  was  then  about  to  lay,  and  on  which,  in  due  subordi¬ 
nation  to  himself,  the  church  was  to  be  built  up  in  its  new  Christian 
form.  (See  below,  on  16,  18,  and  compare  Eph,  2,  20).  As  the  Apos¬ 
tles  were  to  be  tlie  founders  of  the  church,  so  Peter  was  to  be  their 
foreman,  a  position  for  which  he  was  naturally  fitted  by  the  very 
qualities  already  mentioned,  which  are  not  however  indicated  by  the 
name  itself.  That  this  priority  was  not  a  primary  or  permanent  su¬ 
periority  in  rank  and  oflice,  but  a  purely  ministerial  and  temporary 
leadership,  intended  for  the  benefit  of  others,  and  contributing  to  hum¬ 
ble  rather  than  exalt  himself,  will  be  clearly  seen  when  we  come  to 
the  organization  of  the  Apostolic  body  (see  below,  on  10,  1.  2).  An¬ 
drew  is  itself  a  Greek  name  {Andreas),  the  Hebrew  etymology  as¬ 
sumed  by  some  being  forced  and  far-fetched.  It  may  serve  to  illus¬ 
trate  the  familiar  use  of  the  Greek  language  even  in  the  east  from  the 
time  of  the  Macedonian  conquests,  and  the  Jewish  practice  of  adopt¬ 
ing  Gentile  appellation.s,  either  exclusively  or  in  conjunction  with  their 
native  names.  (See  Acts  1,  23.  9,40.  12,12.  13,1.9).  Which  was 
the  elder  brother,  we  have  no  means  of  determining,  as  Simon  may  bo 
first  named  in  prospective  reference  to  his  priority  as  an  Apostle,  or 


MATTHEW  4,18.19. 


95 


his  greater  eminence  in  after  life;  whereas  Andrew  was  the  means  of 
introducing  him  to  Jesus,  to  whom  he  had  himself  be.  n  introduced  by 
John  the  Baptist  (compare  John  1,  49;.  Casting  a  net,  a  Greek  noun 
derived  from  tlie  preceding  verb,  and  meaning  something  cast  around 
(the  body)  as  a  gaiment,  or  (in  the  water)  as  a  net  of  large  size, 
which  sense  of  the  word  occurs  in  Hesiod  and  Heiodotus.  That  he 
saw  them  thus  employed  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  fuller  narra¬ 
tive  of  Luke  (5,  1-10),  describing  the  symbolical  miracle*  by  which  the 
call  of  these  Apostles  was  attended,  while  that  before  us,  and  the  par¬ 
allel  account  in  Mark  (1, 16),  speak  only  of  the  call  itself.  So  for 
from  discrediting  each  other,  these  harmonious  variations  serve  to  show 
that  the  evangelists,  though  perfectly  consistent,  because  under  one 
divine  direction,  were  so  far  independent  of  each  other  as  to  have  their 
several  designs  and  plans,  determining  the  choice  of  their  materials,  or 
the  insertion  and  omission  of  particular  events  and  topics.  For  they 
were  fishermen,  not  only  upon  this  occasion,  but  as  their  stated  occu¬ 
pation  and  the  means  of  their  subsistence.  This  is  not  to  be  exag¬ 
gerated  as  a  proof  of  abject  poverty  and  social  degradation,  because 
fishermen,  in  some  countries  or  in  some  states  of  societ}^,  hold  such  a 
position,  or  because  an  old  Greek  proverb  makes  a  fisher’s  life  the 
type  of  hardship  and  of  destitution.  In  the  part  of  Galilee  adjacent 
to  the  lake,  this  was  probably  a  common  and  a  profitable  business,  as 
it  is  now  on  the  banks  of  Newfoundland  and  coasts  of  New  Eng¬ 
land.  The  first  Apostles  seem  to  have  been  chosen  out  of  this  class, 
not  as  the  lowest  and  the  most  illiterate,  in  order  to  enhance  the  proof 
of  a  divine  authority  attending  the  religion  which  they  propagated  ; 
nor  as  the  hardiest  and  most  accustomed  to  exposure,  fitting  them  for 
what  they  were  to  suffer  in  their  master’s  service ;  but  as  representing 
the  body'’  of  the  people  in  that  part  of  Palestine,  and  no  doubt  pos¬ 
sessing  at  least  an  average  amount  of'naiural  intelligence  and  such  re¬ 
ligious  training  as  was  common  to  the  whole  population,  even  of  Gali¬ 
lee,  v/ho,  although  treated  with  contempt  by  the  people  of  Judea,  fre¬ 
quented  the  same  feasts  (John  4.  45),  and  attended  the  same  spiritual 
worship  in  their  synagogues  (see  below,  on  v.  23),  and  received  the 
same  instruction  from  their  scribes  in  every  town  of  Galilee  (Luke  5, 
17).  The  inference  which  some  of  the  old  writers  draw  from  their 
being  thus  employed  when  called,  to  wit,  that  we  have  most  reason 
to  expect  the  call  of  God  when  busilv  engaged  in  our  lawful  occupa¬ 
tions,  though  unexceptionable  in  itself,  is  historically  neither  so  im¬ 
portant  nor  so  clear  as  the  fact  that  the.se  men,  after  having  been  in 
company  with  Christ  and  recognized  as  his  disciples,  had  returned  to 
or  continued  in  their  former  business,  no  doubt  under  his  direction, 
and  perhaps  expecting  such  a  call  as  the  one  here  recorded.  'This 
would  render  more  intelligible,  or  at  least  more  natural,  their  prompt 
obedience  to  the  summons,  and  confirm  what  has  been  said  already 
of  the  gradual  progressive  plan  by  which  our  Lord  collected  the  ma¬ 
terials  of  his  apostolic  structure. 

19.  And  lie  saith  unto  them,  Follow  me^  and  I  will 
make  3^011  fishers  of  men. 


96 


MATTHEW  4,19.20, 

This  verse  contains  the  call  itself,  for  which  they  had  no  doubt  been 
waiting,  and  by  which  the  whole  course  of  their  life  was  now  to  be 
determined.  Gome  after  me^  or  more  exactly,  hither  !  lehind  me^  not 
only  in  the  literal  and  local  sense,  but  in  the  moral  and  figurative 
sense  of  close  adherence  and  subordination.  This  is  far  more  natural 
and  satisfactory  than  to  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  practice  of  teachers 
literally  walking  about  with  their  pupils  behind  them.  Even  if  there 
were  no  such  practice  in  the  east,  as  there  was  among  the  restless  and 
mercurial  Greeks,  the  language  here  used  would  explain  itself,  as 
suited  to  the  outward  circumstances  in  which  it  was  uttered,  and  at 
the  same  time  as  expressive  of  the  intimate  relation  which  these  men 
were  to  sustain  to  their  new  master.  With  a  beautiful  allusion  to 
their  former  occupation,  at  which  he  had  found  them  busy,  he  describes 
their  new  employment  as  essentially  the  same,  but  dignified  and  sub¬ 
limated  in  its  ends,  and  in  the  means  by  which  they  were  to  be  se¬ 
cured.  They  were  still  to  be  fishermen,  but  not  of  fishes  ;  they  were 
henceforth  to  employ  their  art  on  higher  and  more  valuable  prey. 
This  metaphor  like  others  must  not  be  unduly  pressed  ;  but  the  main 
points  of  resemblance  cannot  be  mistaken,  such  as  the  value  of  the 
object,  the  necessity  of  skill  as  well  as  strength,  of  vigilance  as  well 
as  labour,  with  an  implication  if  not  an  explicit  promise  of  abundance 
and  success  in  their  new  fishery.  All  this  w^as  dependent  not  upon 
themselves,  but  on  the  power  and  authority  of  him  who  called  them. 
I  will  mahe  you  {to  become^  Mark  1, 17)  fishers  of  men.  As  the  busi¬ 
ness  of  their  lives  had  hitherto  been  only  to  provide  for  the  subsist¬ 
ence  of  the  body,  by  securing  the  bodies  of  inferior  animals  for  food ; 
so  now  they  were  to  seek  the  souls  of  men,  not  to  destroy  but  save 
them,  in  the  way  of  Christ’s  appointment  and  for  the  promotion  of 
his  glory.  Though  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  be  selected  fishermen 
to  be  his  first  Apostles  merel}''  for  the  purpose  of  drawing  this  com¬ 
parison,  he  may  have  called  them  from  the  actual  labours  of  the  fish¬ 
ery,  in  order  to  employ  it  as  an  emblem  of  their  future  work,  as  w^ell 
as  with  a  view  to  its  miraculous  illustration,  as  preserved  l3y  Luke 
(5, 1-10). 


20.  And  they  straightway  left  (their)  nets,  and  fol¬ 
lowed  him. 

The  effect  of  this  abrupt  call,  as  it  seems  to  be  if  we  look  only  at 
this  narrative  and  that  of  Mark,  without  Luke’s  more  particular  ac¬ 
count  of  what  preceded  it,  is  here  described  as  instantaneous,  not  only 
because  they  were  expecting  and  prepared  for  such  a  summons,  but 
because  they  were  divinely  moved  to  answer  and  obey  it.  This  un¬ 
hesitating  response  to  the  divine  call  is  represented  elsewhere  as  an 
equitable  test  of  true  devotion  to  the  Master’s  service  (Luke  9,  57-G2). 
Leating^  letting  them  lie,  or  letting  them  alone,  the  Greek  verb  used 
above  in  3,  15,  and  there  explained.  The  nets  (not  the  word  so  ren¬ 
dered  in  V.  18,  but  the  generic  term  of  which  that  is  a  specification), 


97 


MATTHEW  4,20.21. 

i.  e.  the  nets  which  they  were  casting  into  the  sea,  either  to  wash 
them  (compare  Luke  5,  1),  or  for  a  diaught  of  fishes  (compare  Luke 
5.  4.  5).  It  is  implied,  though  not  expressed  (as  in  the  version)  that 
the  nets  belonged  to  them.  The  immediate  act  described  is  that  of 
leaving  their  nets  then  and  there  ;  but  this  implies  their  leaving  them 
forever,  both  as  property  and  soui'ccs  of  subsistence.  (See  below,  on 
19,  27.)  Follo'wed^  not  the  phrase  so  rendered  in  v.  19,  but  the  usual 
Greek  synonyrne  of  follow^  and  expressing  the  same  sense  as  in  the 
other  case,  but  in  a  less  pointed  and  emphatic  manner. 

21.  And  going  on  from  thence,  he  saw  other  two 
brethren,  James  (the  son)  of  Zebedee,  and  John  his  broth¬ 
er,  in  a  shin  with  Zebedee  their  father,  mending  their 
nets  :  and  he  called  them. 

Another  pair  of  brothers  was  to  be  called  to  the  same  service  at 
the  same  time  and  place.  Advancing,  going  forward  in  the  same  di¬ 
rection,  from  the  spot  where  Simon  and  Andrew  had  been  called,  and 
now  perhaps  attended  by  them,  although  this  is  not  a  necessary  sup¬ 
position,  as  the  boats  were  near  together  (Mark  1,  19;,  and  the  fishery 
a  joint  one  (Luke  5,  10).  Them  too  (fie  saw,  as  he  had  seen  the  oth¬ 
ers)  in  the  hoat  (as  "Wiclif  renders  it,  the  less  exact  term  ship  having 
been  introduced  by  Tyndale.)  The  Greek  word  {liKoiov  from  TrXfco) 
'properly  means  any  thing  that  sails,  corresponding  moi  e  exact!}’’  to  the 
English  craft  or  vessel.  Those  here  meant  were  probably  mere  fishing 
smacks,  propelled  both  by  sails  and  oars,  and  drawn  up  on  the  shore 
when  not  engaged  in  active  service.  Janies  the  (son)  of  Zebedee,  a  name 
occurring  also  in  the  Jewish  booivS  (Jacob  Bar  Zabdi  or  Zahdai),  and 
supposed  by  some,  but  without  much  probability,  to  designate  the 
same  person.  The  first  name  has  always  been  a  common  one  am.ong 
the  Jews,  as  that  of  their  national  progenitor,  and  the  other  seems  to 
be  identical  with  names  which  occur  in  the  Old  Testament  (Zabdi, 
Josh.  7,  1  ;  Zebadiah,  1  Chr.  8,  15).  That  the  relation  here  denoted  by 
the  genitive  is  that  of  father  and  son,  is  not  only  proiiable  from  usage, 
but  rendered  certain  by  the  distinct  mention  of  the  father  in  the  next 
clause,  as  present  in  the  boat,  and  no  doubt  managing  the  fisheiy. 
John  his  brother,  commonly  regarded  as  the  other  disciple  of  John  the 
Baptist,  who  with  Andrew  followed  Jesus  when  acknowledged  by 
their  master  as  the  Lamb  of  God,  (John  1,  35,  37.)  Mending.,  repair¬ 
ing,  what  is  worn  or  broken,  is  the  usual  meaning  of  this  Greek  word 
in  the  classics,  though  according  to  its  etymology  and  Hellenistic 
usage,  it  may  have  the  wider  sense  of  making  perfect  or  complete, 
putting  in  order,  making  ready  for  use.  or  in  familiar  English,  fixing."’' 
In  one  way  or  the  otliei',  both  these  pairs  of  brothers  were  preparing 
for  their  daily  work  or  actually  busied  at  it,  when  the  master  called 
them^  using  probably  the  same  formula  in  both  the  cases^  though 
recorded  only  in  the  first  (v.  19). 

*  See  below,  on  21, 10,  and  compare  Luke  6,  40.  Rom.  9,  22.  1  Cor.  1,  10. 
Gal.  G,  1.  1  Th.  3,  10.  Heb.  10,  5.  11,  3.  13,  21.  1  Pet.  5,  10. 

5 


98 


MATTHEW  4,22.23. 


22.  And  they  immediately  left  the  ship^  and  their 
father,  and  followed  him. 

Here  again  the  effect  was  an  immediate  one,  and  rendered  still 
more  striking  hy  the  fact  that  they  left  not  only  the  nets  and  the 
boat  but  their  father  who  was  in  it.  And  they  (or  they  tod)^  i.  e.  the 
sons  of  Zebedee  no  less  than  those  of  Jonas  (t-ee  above,  on  v.  20). 
Even  from  what  is  here  said  it  might  naturally  be  inferied  that  Zebe¬ 
dee  was  present,  not  as  a  passenger  or  mere  spectator,  but  as  the  chief- 
fisherman,  and  this  is  confirmed  by  the  mention  of  hired  men  in  the 
parallel  account  of  Mark  (1,  20).  There  is  therefore  no  ground  in  the 
text  or  context  for  the  notion  that  they  left  their  father  by  himself,  or 
destitute  or  helpless  from  extreme  old  age,  all  which  are  fanciful  em¬ 
bellishments,  without  even  probability  to  recommend  them.  On  the 
contrar}^,  the  natural  presumption  is  that  Zebedee,  instead  of  being 
utterly  dependent  on  his  sons  for  his  subsistence,  furnished  them  em¬ 
ployment  as  lie  did  to  others,  and  that  when  they  left  him.  it  was 
not  to  starve,  but  to  continue  his  old  business  with  the  aid  of  others. 
Even  in  the  imaginary  case  just  mentioned,  the  express  command  of 
Christ  would  have  suspended  every  other  claim  and  obligaiion;  but 
no  such  case  appears  to  have  Existed,  and  we  have  neither  right  nor 
reason  to  invent  it.  That  the  family  of  Zebedee  was  not  one  of  the 
lowest  rank,  may  also  be  inferred  from  John  18,  15,  as  commonly 
interpreted.  That  the  mii-acle  which  Luke  records  (5,  1-7)  occurred 
at  this  time,  is  apparent  from  his  mentioning  the  call  and  their  re¬ 
sponse  to  it  (5,  10.  11),  which  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  occurred  on 
more  than  one  occasion. 

23.  And  Jesus  went  about  all  Galilee,  teaching  in 
their  synagogues,  and  preaching  the  gospel  of  the  Idng- 
dom,  and  healing  all  manner  of  sickness,  and  all  manner 
of  disease  among  the  people. 

This  is  not  a  statement  of  what  took  place  upon  any  one  occasion, 
or  a  direct  continuation  of  the  narrative  immediately  preceding,  but  a 
general  descidption  of  our  Saviour’s  ministry  in  Galilee,  after  he  had 
fairly  entered  on  it  (as  related  in  vs.  12-17),  and  had  selected  certain 
persons  to  attend  him  (as  recorded  in  vs.  18-21).  Being  thus  provid¬ 
ed  with  the  necessary  aids,  he  began  the  systematic  work  which  was 
continued  till  he  bade  farewell  to  Galilee,  and  set  out  upon  his  last 
journey  to  Jerusalem  (see  below,  on  19,  1).  This  ministry  is  here 
described  as  itinerant  or  ambuiatoiy,  not  confined  to  one  spot  or  a 
few,  but  covering  the  whole  of  Galilee,  no  doubt  in  the  widest  .sense 
of  the  expression  (see  above,  on  2,  22.  4,  12-15),  Went  ahotit,  a 
verb  originally  meaning  led  dbout^  of  which  sense  there  is  only  one 
example  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  (1  Cor.  9,  5).  In  every 
other  case  it  has  the  neuter  sense  of  going  about,  which  some  regard 
as  an  ellipsis  for  the  phrase  led  (Jiimself)  ahout,  but  which  more  prob- 


99 


MATTHEW  4,23. 

ably  implies  that  he  led  others,  that  he  did  not  po  about  alone  but 
as  a  leader,  with  a  suite  or  retinue,  composed  in  this  case  of  the  four 
disciples  whose  vocation  is  recorded  in  the  previous  context  (vs,  18- 
21),  and  perhaps  of  others.  This  is  a  summary  description  of  our 
Lord’s  prophetic  ministry,  with  its  two  great  functions,  which  are 
there  distinctly  and  particularly  mentioned.  Teaching^  imparting 
hnowledge,  i.  e.  as  the  context  here  demands,  reliitious  knowledge,  or 
the  knowledge  necessary  to  salvation,  not  in  the  completed  form  sub¬ 
sequently  given  to  it  in  the  apostolic  preaching  and  epistle.s,  but  in 
such  a  measure  as  to  make  those  who  received  it  wise  unto  salvation. 
(See  below,  on  5,  1.)  In  their  synagogues,  i.  e.  those  of  Galilee,  the 
country  being  put  for  its  inhabitants  (see  above,  on  3,  5).  Synagogues, 
a  Greek  word  which  originally  means  collection,  and  is  properly 
applied  to  things,  but  in  the  Hellenistic  dialect  to  persons  also,  like 
our  English  meeting.  It  is  frequently  applied  in  the  Septuagint  ver¬ 
sion  to  the  whole  congregation  of  Israel,  as  an  aggregate  and  corporate 
body.  During  the  Babylonish  captivity,  it  seems  to  have  been  trans- 
fen’ed  to  the  divisions  of  this  body,  in  their  separation  and  dispersion, 
and  more  especially  to  their  assemblies  for  religious  worship.  After 
the  second  great  dispersion  of  the  Jews,  occasioned  by  the  Homan 
conquest  and  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  synagogues  assumed  the 
form  of  organized  societies,  with  a  peculiar  constitution  and  discipline, 
from  which  that  of  the  Christian  Church  is  commonly  supposed  to 
have  been  copied.  It  is  doubtful,  however,  whether  synagogues,  in 
this  later  sense,  existed  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  when 
the  word,  though  sometimes,  like  the  Engli.sh  church,  school,  court, 
etc.  transferred  to  the  place  of  meeting,  properly  denoted  the  meeting 
itself,  not  as  an  organic  body,  but  as  an  assembly  of  the  peo|)le  for  a 
special  purpose.  In  Jerusalem,  where  multitudes  of  foreigners  were 
gathered,  to  attend  the  feasts  or  as  permanent  settlers,  it  was  natural 
that  those  of  the  same  race  and  language  should  convene  together, 
both  for  worship  and  for  social  intercourse  ;  and  this  accounts  for  the 
extraordinary  number  of  synagogues,  alleged  by  the  Jewish  tradition 
to  have  existed  in  Jerusalem  before  its  downfall  (-180),  an  incredil)lo 
number  if  we  understand  by  S3magogues  distinct  organizations  of  a 
public  and  a  formal  nature,  but  possible  enough  if  nothing  more  bo 
meant  than  gatherings  of  the  people,  in  larger  or  smaller  circles,  for 
religious  [)urposes.  Of  this  truly  national  and  sacred  usage,  that  of 
meeting  on  the  sabbath  for  religious  wor.ship,  our  Lord  immediately 
availed  himself,  as  furnishing  the  most  direct  and  easy  access  to  tlie 
body  of  the  people.  The  service  of  tlie  S3  nagogue  appears  to  have 
been  eminently  simple,  consisting  in  prayer  and  the  reading  of  the 
Sc)'i[)tures,  with  occasional  or  stated  exhortation.  That  our  Lord  was 
permitted  to  perform  this  duty  without  any  seeming  opposition  or 
objection,  may  be  owing  to  a  customaiy  license  of  instruction,  or  to 
his  universal  I'ecognition  as  a  gifted  tearher  and  a  worker  of  miracles 
(compare  Lrdee  4,  40.  Acts  13,  15).  Preaching  (announcing  or  ])ro- 
claimnig)  the  gospel  (glad  news  or  glad  tidings)  of  the  kingdom  (the 
Messiah’s  reign,  the  new  economy  or  Christian  dispensation).  This 


100 


MATTHEW  4,23.24. 

was  one  great  function  of  his  ministry  ;  the  other  is  described  in  the 
remainder  of  the  verse.  Healing^  a  Greek  word  which  originally 
means  serding  or  attending  (as  a  servant  does  a  master)  ;  then  tending^ 
nursing  (with  particular  reference  to  sickness)  ;  and  then  healing^  cur¬ 
ing,  which  last  word  (derived  from  curd)  primarily  means  to  take  care, 
but  like  the  Greek  one  here  used  is  specially  applied  to  the  treatment 
and  removal  of  disease.  Sickness^  the  Greek  cori  esponding  to  disease 
in  English,  while  the  one  so  rendered  means  originally  softness^  and 
then  languor,  weakness,  or  infirmity.  Some  suppose  a  distinction  to  be 
here  intended  between  chronic  and  acute  disease ;  others  between 
positive  disease  and  mere  debility  or  sickness  ;  but  most  probably  the 
two  terms  are  combined  as  synonymous,  or  nearly  so,  in  order  to  ex¬ 
haust  the  whole  idea  of  sickness  or  disease.  All  manner^  i.  e.  every 
kind,  is  not  a  version  but  a  paraphrase,  intended  to  preclude  the  ex¬ 
travagant  idea  that  our  Saviour  really  healed  all  the  sickness  then  exist¬ 
ing.  This  is  better  than  the  old  device  of  making  all  mean  many^  which 
it  never  does  directly,  though  it  often  denotes  all  within  a  certain  limit, 
then  suggested  by  the  context.  So  in  this  case,  all  disease  and  all 
infirmity  may  mean  all  that  was  brought  within  his  reach  or  present¬ 
ed  to  his  notice  by  the  sufferers  themselves  or  by  others  representing 
them  ;  the  rather  as  there  is  not  the  remotest  intimation  that  the 
Saviour  ever  finally  rejected  such  an  application.  (See  below,  on  9,  35, 
where  the  very  same  words  are  translated,  every  sickness  and  every 
disease.) 

24.  And  his  fame  went  throughout  all  Syria  :  and 
they  brought  unto  him  all  sick  people  that  were  taken 
with  divers  diseases  and  torments,  and  those  which  were 
possessed  with  devils,  and  those  which  were  lunatic,  and 
those  that  had  the  palsy  ;  and  he  healed  them. 

Having  thus  related  the  beginning  of  Christ’s  ministry,  and  de¬ 
scribed  in  general  terms  its  two  great  functions,  the  didactic  and  the 
thaumaturgic,  Matthew  tells  us  the  effect  of  his  appearance  in  these 
official  characters,  i.  e.,  as  a  Teacher  and  a  Healer.  This  effect  was  an 
extensive  fame  or  reputation  (literally,  hearing)^  not  confined  to  Gali¬ 
lee,  nor  even  to  the  land  of  Israel,  but  penetrating  into  the  surround¬ 
ing  region  on  the  north  and  east,  here  denoted  by  the  vague  but  com¬ 
prehensive  name  of  Syi'ia,  as  applied  to  the  great  Koman  province,  of 
which  Palestine  w’as  then  a  part  or  a  dependency.  Its  precise  limits 
are  not  only  doubtful  but  of  little  exegetical  importance,  as  the  fact 
recorded  is  the  wide  extension  of  our  Lord’s  fame,  not  to  a  specific 
distance  but  in  a  particular  direction.  The  effect  and  proof  of  this 
celebrity  was  a  vast  concourse  needing  his  Divine  help,  either  for 
themselves  or  others.  Ilei'e  again  the  pronoun  (they  brought)  has  re¬ 
spect  not  to  the  formal  antecedent  (-6'yri«.),  but  to  that  for  which  it 
stands,  the  whole  surrounding  population.  (See  above,  on  v.  23.)  Sick 
people^  literally,  those  having  badly ^  i.  e.,  having  themselves  (or  being) 


MATTHEW  4,24. 


101 


ill.  These  miraculous  cures  were  not  confinecl  to  any  one  form  of  dis¬ 
ease,  but  included  all  varieties.  Divers^  a  Gi-eek  word,  originall}^  si«-- 
nifying  parti-colored,  piebnld,  but  used  by  the  best  writers  in  the 
wider  sense  of  various,  different  in  kind.  This  phrase  may  be  gram¬ 
matically  construed  either  with  what  goes  before  (having  themselves 
ill  with  various  diseases),  or  with  what  follows  (with  various  diseases 
seized)  ;  but  the  latter  construction  is  preferred  by  the  best  philologi¬ 
cal  authorities.  Torments^  a  word  which  oiiginally  means  a  touch¬ 
stone  for  the  trial  of  the  precious  metals  j  then  any  mode  of  inqui¬ 
sition  or  discovery,  especially  by  torture;  and  then  discarding  the 
original  idea,  and  retaining  only  that  of  torment  or  extreme  pain.  It 
is  here  applied  to  painful  bodily  diseases,  as  it  is  to  the  pains  of  hell  in 
the  only  other  place  where  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  (Luke  10, 
23-28).  Talcen^  seized,  or,  as  the  stronger  term  in  Greek  suggests, 
held  fast,  confined,  oppressed.*  To  show  still  further  the  variWy  of 
cases  thus  presented  to  our  Saviour  as  the  Great  Physician,  the 
evangelist  enumerates  three  classes,  as  among  the  most  severe  and 
yet  the  most  familiar.  Those  which  were  possessed  with  devils^  six 
words  answering  to  one  in  Greek,  which  may  be  lendercd  demon¬ 
ized^  i.  e.,  subjected  to  the  power  of  demons.  This  specific  malady  is 
mentioned  on  account  of  its  extraordinary  prevalence  at  that  time, 
its  peculiarly  distressing  character,  its  strange  complication  of 
moral  and  physical  disorder,  and,  above  all,  its  mysterious  connection 
With  the  unseen  world  and  with  another  race  of  spirits.  These  are 
called  unclean  or  impure  in  a  moral  sense,  essentially  equivalent  to 
wicked^  but  suggesting  more  directly  the  idea  of  corruption,  as  exist¬ 
ing  in  themselves  and  practised  upon  others.  These  are  the  angels  or 
ministering  spirits  of  the  devil,  who  fell  wdth  him,  have  since  been 
added  to  him,  as  believers  are  added  to  the  Lord  and  are  co¬ 
operating  with  him  as  the  tempters  and  accusers  of  mankind.  To 
these  fallen  and  seducing  spirits  our  race  has  ever  been  accessible  and 
more  or  less  subjected ;  but  wdien  Christ  was  upon  earth,  they  WTre 
permitted  to  assume  a  more  perceptible,  if  not  a  more  complete  as¬ 
cendency,  extending  to  the  body  and  the  mind,  and  thus  presenting 
the  worst  forms  of  insanity  and  bodily  disease  combined.  That  these 
demoniacal  possessions  are  not  mere  poetical  descriptions  of  disease  or 
madness,  but  the  real  acts  of  spiritual  agents,  is  apparent  from  the 
personality  ascribed  to  them,  as  well  as  from  their  being  so  explicitly 
distinguished  from  all  other  maladies,  as  in  the  case  before  us ;  while 
the  fact  that  they  did  really  produce  disease  abundantly  accounts  for 
their  being  sometimes  so  described  and  constantly  connected  wuth 
corporeal  illness.  The  extraordinary  prevalence  of  these  disorders  in 
the  time  of  Christ,  while  wo  scarcely  hear  of  them  in  any  other  period 
of  history,  may  be  pai  tly  owing  to  the  fact,  that  what  is  always  going 
on  in  .secret  w^as  then  brought  to  light  by  his  authoritative  interposi¬ 
tion ;  and  partly  to  the  fact,  that  the  stupendous  strife  between  the 

*  Compare  Luke  8,  87.  45.  12,  50.  19,  48.  20,  08.  Acts  7,  57.  18,  5.  2  Cor. 
5,  14.  ITiil.  1,  28. 


102 


MATTHEW  4,24. 

“seed  of  the  vroman  ”  and  the  “seed  of  the  serpent”  (Gen.  3,  15), 
■which  gives  complexion  to  all  hnman  history,  then  reached  its  crisis, 
and  these  demoniacal  possessions  were  at  once  the  work  of  Satan,  as  a 
means  of  doing  evil,  and  of  God,  as  a  means  of  doing  good,  by  glorify¬ 
ing  him  whom  he  had  sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world.  (See  John 
10,  36,  17,  1.  5.)  Every  expulsion  of  a  demon  by  our  Lord  himself, 
or  in  his  name  by  his  Apostles,  was  a  triumph  over  his  great  enemy, 
not  only  in  the  unseen  world  but  upon  earth,  in  the  sight  of  men  as 
well  as  angels  (Luke  10,  17.  18.  John  12,  31.  16,  11).  This  imme¬ 
diate  relation  of  these  strange  phenomena  to  Christ’s  person  and  offi¬ 
cial  work,  accounts  for  their  absence  both  before  and  since,  as  well  as 
for  the  impotent  resistance  of  the  evil  ones  themselves,  and  their  ex¬ 
torted  testimony  to  the  character  and  rank  of  their  destroyer.  (See 
below,  on  8,  29-32.  Mark  5,  7.  9,  26.  Luke  4,  33-35.  41.  8,  28.  29.)  It 
explains  likewise  the  distinct  mention  of  this  class  of  miracles,  both 
here  and  elsewhere  (e.  g.  8,  16.  28,  33.  Mark  1,  34.  6,  13.  16,  17. 
18.  Luke  8,  2.  36),  as  being  in  themselves  the  most  surprising 
of  all  cures,  and  at  the  same  time  the  most  palpable  of  all  attesta¬ 
tions  to  the  IMessiahship  and  Deity  of  Jesus.  Those  which  were 
lunatk^  another  single  word  in  Greek,  which  might  be  rendered  moon- 
struch^  i.  e.  morbidly  affected  by  the  changes  of  the  moon,  applied  in 
English  {lunatic  from  Iwno)  to  insanity,  but  in  Greek  to  epilepsy.  (See 
below,  on  17,  15,  the  onl}’-  other  instance  of  the  term  in  the  New 
Testament.)  The  Avord  may  here  be  used  in  its  secondary  sense,  with¬ 
out  regard  to  its  original  import,  just  as  we  use  lunatic  for  madman., 
without  even  thinking  of  its  derivation  ;  or  it  may  denote  a  real 
ph3'sical  connection,  Avhich,  although  inscrutable  to  us,  is  not  more  in¬ 
credible  in  itself  than  the  effects  of  the  moon  upon  the  tides,  or  of  cer¬ 
tain  atmosf)heric  changes  upon  some  constitutions.  At  all  events, 
there  is  no  ground  for  the  charge  of  conniA^ance  at  a  popular  or  super¬ 
stitious  error,  any  more  than  in  the  case  of  demoniacal  possessions. 
Those  that  had  the  imlsy,  literally,  paralytics,  a  Avord  Avhich  seems 
not  to  have  obtained  currency  in  English  Avhen  the  Bible  AA'as  trans¬ 
lated,  as  we  never  meet'  Avith  it  or  its  cognate  noun,  paralysis,  but  al- 
Avays  Avith  its  earlier  corruption,  palsy.  Another  diflercnce  of  usage 
in  the  Greek  itself  is  that  the  corresponding  A^rb  {to  paralyze)  is  used 
exclusivel}''  by  Luke  (5,  18.  24.  Acts  8,  7.  9,  33.)  and  Paul  (Heb.  12, 
12),  Avhile  the  adjcctiA’c  is  equally  peculiar  to  the  other  Gospels,*  The 
Greek  words,  according  to  the  medical  authorities,  denote  all  morbid 
relaxation  of  the  nerves,  including  Avhat  the  modern  nosolog}^  distin¬ 
guishes  as  paralysis  and  apoplexy.  And  he  healed  them,  Avithout  any 
limitation  as  to  number  or  implied  discrimination,  Avhich  omission,  al¬ 
though  in  itself  merely  ncgatiA'e,  must  be  interpreted  b}^  what  AAxas 
])Osiiively  said  before,  viz.,  that  he  healed  every  sichness  and  disease.^ 
not  merely  some  of  CA’cry  kind,  but  CAmry  case  presented  to  him.  (See 
above,  on  v.  23.)  ‘ 


*  See  below,  on  8,  G.  0,  2.  6.  Compare  Mark  2,  3.  4.  5.  0.  10. 


103 


MATTHEW  4,25. 

25.  And  there  followed  him  great  multitudes  of  peo¬ 
ple  from  Galilee,  and  (from)  Decapolis,  and  (from)  Jerusa¬ 
lem,  and  (from)  Judea,  and  (from)  beyond  Jordan. 

Tliis  is  not  a  mere  tautology  or  varied  repetition  of  the  statement 
just  made,  but  the  record  of  another  fact  of  great  importance,  serving 
to  connect  the  previous  description  of  Christ’s  ministry  with  the  great 
discourse  contained  in  the  ensuing  chapters.  This  important  fact  is, 
that  besides  the  multitudes  who  came  to  obtain  healing  for  themselves 
and  others,  there  was  soon  formed  a  permanent  or  constant  body  of 
disciples  in  the  wide  sense,  who  not  only  came  to  him  while  in  their 
neighbourhood,  but  followed  him  from  place  to  place,  of  course  with 
many  fluctuations  and  mutations  as  to  individuals,  so  as  to  keep  him 
constantly  surrounded  by  a  multitude.  This  is  one  of  the  most  singu¬ 
lar  yet  certain  facts  of  our  Lord’s  ministry,  to  wit,  that  even  in  his 
most  profound  retirements  the  multitude  was  never  very  far  off.* 
Grent  multitudes^  literally,  m'lny  crowds^  i.  e,  promiscuous  assemblies, 
as  distinguished  from  organic  bodies  or  selected  companies,  whether 
great  or  small.  From  is  not  to  be  connected  with  the  verb  {folloiced)^ 
but  <lenote:s  the  quarters  whence  the  multitudes  or  crowds  came,  who 
did  follow  or  attend  him  in  his  journeys  throughout  Galilee.  Besides 
the  three  great  divisions  of  the  land  of  Israel,  at  that  time,  Galilee, 
Judea,  and  Perea  (beyond  Jordan),  which  have  been  already  men¬ 
tioned,!  Matthew  specifies  Deeapolis^  a  Greek  word  meaning  Ten 
Towns  an<l  analogous  in  form  to  Tripolis^  TetrapoUs.  and  Pentajoolis, 
all  of  which  occur  in  Greek  geography,  as  names  of  tracts  in  difierent 
countries,  so  called  from  their  having  three,  four,  or  five  important 
towns  respective! Pliny  and  Ptolemy  enumerate  the  ten  towns 
here  meant,  coinciding  «s  to  eight  (Scythopolis,  Hippos,  Gadai*a,  Dion, 
Pella,  Gerasa,  Pliiladelphia,  Oanatha),  but  differing  as  to  the  remain¬ 
ing  two.  This  dilference  does  not  necessarily  imply  mistake  upon  the 
part  of  either,  as  the  ten  towns  may  not  have  been  always  reckoned  in 
the  same  way,  or  Decapolis  may  have  been  a  vague  and  popular  rather 
than  a  technical  and  certain  designation.  All  the  cities  named  by 
.  Ptolemy  and  Pliny,  except  one  (Scythopolis),  lay  east  of  Jordan,  and 
soutli  of  the  sea  of  Galilee.  They  seem  to  have  been  all  Greek  cities, 
i.  e.  chiefly  occupied  by  Gentiles,  some  belonging  to  Perea,  some  to 
Cjelesyria,  and  here  collectively  referred  to,  not  for  the  sake  of  geo¬ 
graphical  precision,  but  to  show  that  this  great  confluence  of  hearers 
and  disciples  was  made  up  both  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.  How  soon  the 
concourse  reached  its  height  is  not  recorded  either  here  or  elsewhere; 
but  the  words  of  Matthew,  taken  in  their  whole  connection,  seem  in¬ 
tended  to  suggest  that  it  was  at  this  interesting  juncture,  when  the 

*  See  below,  on  5,  1.  8,  1.  18.  11,  7.  12,  15.  13,  2.  14, 14.  15,  10.  SO.  17,  14. 
19,  2.  20,  29. 

t  See  above,  on  2,  1.  22.  3,  13.  4,  12.  15. 

X  The  first  name  was  also  used  in  reference  to  a  single  town,  composed  of 
three  parts,  and  is  still  the  name  of  cities  both  in  Africa  and  Asia. 


104 


MATTHEW  5-7. 


tide  of  popularity  was  at  its  height,  and  the  representation  of  the 
regions  and  the  races  most  complete,  that  he  delivered  foi-  tlie  first 
time  the  remarkable  discourse  recorded  in  the  next  three  chapters. 


CHAPTEES  V.— YIL 

The  next  three  chapters  are  occupied  with  a  continuous  discourse, 
traditionally  known,  from  the  place  of  its  delivery,  as  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount.  Different  opinions  have  been  entertained  in  reference  to 
its  connection  with  the  previous  context,  and  with  Matthew's  entire 
narrative.  The  obvious  presumption  is,  that  he  is  here  recording 
what  our  Saviour  said  on  one  particular  occasion.  Besides  the  nega¬ 
tive  proof  afforded  by  the  want  of  any  intimation  to  the  contrary,  this 
assumption  is  confirmed  by  the  simple  historical  form  of  the  narration, 
and  the  accompanying  circumstances  mentioned  in  the  two  first 
verses. 

In  opposition  to  this  simplest  and  most  natural  presumption,  some 
prefer  to  regard  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  as  a  summary  and  sample 
of  our  Lord’s  instructions  during  the  wlu.le  course  of  his  public  min¬ 
istry.  This  hypothesis  agrees  well  with  our  previous  conclusion, 
drawn  from  other  premises,  that  the  immediately  preceding  context  is 
a  general  description  cf  that  ministry,  and  not  of  its  commencement 
merely  ;  so  that  we  might  naturally  expect  what  is  there  said  of  his 
miracles  and  journeys,  to  be  followed  by  a^similar  account  of  his 
preaching.  It  also  agrees  well  with  what  is  now  very  commonly  ad¬ 
mitted  to  be  Matthew’s  practice  of  combining  matters  of  the  same 
kind,  whether  consecutive  in  time  or  not.  It  is  supposed  to  be  fur¬ 
ther  recommended  by  the  light  which  it  appears  to  throw  upon  the 
fact,  that  many  of  the  dicta  comprehended  in  this  long  discourse  are 
also  met  with  elsewhere  in  the  Gospels,  and  often  in  what  seems  to  be 
their  original  historical  connection.  This  phenomenon,  however,  is 
susceptible  of  other  explanation,  at  least  in  lefcrence  to  some  expres¬ 
sions  which  arc  aphoristical  in  form,  and  wltich  our  Lord  appears  to 
have  employed  in  various  applications  and  connections. 

This  same  hypothesis  is  further  recommended  by  the  aid  which  it 
is  thought  to  afford  in  the  solution  of  another  difficult  inquiry  as  to 
the  mutual  relation  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  contained  in  Luke  and 
Matthew.  The  old  and  obvious  assumption,  that  these  passages  are 
two  reports  of  one  and  the  same  sermon,  is  adhered  to  by  the  modern 
sceptical  school  of  critics  and  interpreters,  not  only  on  the  old  ground, 
that  they  both  begin  and  end  alike,  and  have  the  same  general  drift  ami 
tone,  and  are  followed  by  an  account  of  the  same  miracle,  but  also  on 
account  of  its  affording  an  occasion  and  a  pretext  for  disparaging  the 
verbal  inspiration  of  the  two  evangelists,  by  showing  how  they  disagree 


MATTHEW  5-7. 


105 


in  their  report  of  the  very  same  transaction.  But  even  granting  what 
is  thus  assumed,  there  is  really  no  contradiction,  nor  even  any  varia¬ 
tion,  whether  of  the  form  or  substance,  which  may  not  be  reconciled 
by  simply  assuming  what  is  natural  and  matter  of  experience  in  all 
such  cases,  namely,  that  one  witness  ma}''  preserve  the  substance  and 
the  other  reproduce  the  very  form,  or  both  record  the  former  only 
without  any  deviation  from  the  truth  of  history  or  from  the  credit  of 
the  several  historians.  But  although  the  difficulties  W'hich  attend  this 
supposition  are  by  no  means  insurmountable,  in  case  of  exegetical 
necessity  excluding  every  other,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the}^  are  quite 
sufficient  to  command  our  preference  of  any  doctrine  unencumbered 
with  them.  Such  is  the  theory  that  both  Luke  and  jMatthew’s  Sei  rnou 
on  the  Mount  are  general  desci'iptions  of  Christ’s  public  teaching, 
gathered  from  his  various  discourses,  and  including  many  things 
recorded  elsewhere  in  their  true  historical  connection.  This  hypothesis 
admits  of  being  modified  without  essential  change  by  supposing  only 
one  to  have  this  general  comprehensive  character,  and  the  other  to  be 
really  a  record  of  a  particular  discourse  delivered  upon  one  occasion. 
The  latter  description  may  be  then  applied  to  Luke,  while  Matthew  is 
supposed  to  have  added  many  kindred  sayings  uttered  upon  different 
and  various  occasions.  Still  another  view  of  the  relation  between  these 
discourses  is,  that  though  originally  one,  they  have  been  fully  given 
only  by  iNJatthew  for  his  Jewish  readei  s,  while  much  that  was  appro¬ 
priate  to  them  is  omitted  or  curtailed  by  Luke  as  less  appropitate  to 
Gentiles.  But  as  this  divensit}^  of  purpose  cannot  be  distinctly  traced 
in  all  the  variations,  some  still  prefer  the  ingenious  hypothesis  suggested 
by  Augustine,  that  the  two  discourses  are  entirely  distinct  though  de¬ 
livered  on  the  same  occasion ;  that  preserved  by  Matthew  on  the 
mountain-top  to  a  select  circle  of  disciples,  that  by  Luke  upon  the 
plain  below  to  the  whole  multitude.  This  not  only  makes  it  easier  to 
account  for  the  omissions,  as  of  matters  not  well  suited  to  the  ear  of  a 
promiscuous  assembly  but  also  enables  us  to  reconcile  the  seeming  dis¬ 
agreement  of  the  two  accounts  as  to  the  place  where  the  discourse  was 
uttered,  without  resorting  to  the  less  obvious  though  not  impossible 
assumption,  that  he  went  up  and  down  repeatedly,  or  that  the  place 
described  by  Luke  was  not  a  plain,  as  distinguished  fi  om  a  mountain, 
but  a  leiyel  place  upon  the  mountain  itself.  It  cannot  be  denied,  how¬ 
ever,  that  Augustine’s  supposition  of  two  versions  of  the  same  discourse, 
delivered  in  immediate  succession  and  almost  upon  the  same  spot,  and 
to  some  of  the  same  hearers,  although  not  impossible  or  inadmissible 
in  case  of  urgent  exegetical  necessity,  is  far  from  being  obvious  or 
natural,  and  therefore  not  to  be  insisted  on,  if  any  simpler  and  more 
probable  solution  of  the  facts  can  be  suggested. 

Such  a  solution  seems  to  me  to  be  afforded  by  a  due  consideration 
of  the  fact,  that  Christ’s  discourses  were  delivered  not  to  one  fixed 
audience  or  congregation,  but  to  shifting  multitudes,  who  all  however 
were  in  need  of  substantially  tlie  same  instruction,  which  would 
naturally  lead  him,  not  to  utter  new  discourses  upon  every  new  occa¬ 
sion,  like  a  settled  pastor  or  a  fashionable  preacher,  afraid  or  ashamed 


106 


MATTHEW  5-7. 


to  repeat  himself,  nor  3'ct  to  reiterate  with  slavish  uniformity  a  fixed 
liturgical  type  or  formula;  but  intermediate  between  these  two  ex¬ 
tremes,  to  dispense  the  same  substantial  truth  with  that  familiar 
mixture  of  diversity  and  sameness,  to  which  even  uninspired  teachers 
are  accustomed,  who  have  frequent  occasion  to  inculcate  one  unwritten 
lesson  upon  different  assemblies  and  at  various  times  and  places.  If 
the  truth  embodied  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  was  needed  by  one 
multitude,  it  must  have  been  by  others,  and  it  cannot  be  supposed, 
without  detracting'  from  the  Master’s  wisdom  and  benevolence,  that  he 
dispensed  it  once  for  all,  instead  of  frequently  repeating  it,  at  less  or 
greater  length,  and  with  many  unessential  variations  of  exprc.=sion. 
Two  such  variations  on  the  same  theme  are  preserved  to  us  by  Luke 
and  IMatthew ;  by  the  former  as  delivered  in  connection  with  the  final 
designation  of  the  twelve  apo.stles,  as  a  sort  of  inaugural  discourse  or 
ordination  sermon ;  by  the  latter,  as  the  very  beginning  of  our  Lord’s 
public  teaching,  although  Ms  position  in  the  Gospel  may  be  rather  his¬ 
torical  than  chronological. 

On  any  of  these  suppositions,  this  discourse  presents  a  sample  of 
his  preaching,  and  discloses  to  us  what  was  its  design  and  character, 
whether, actually  spoken  upon  some  one  occasion,  or  collected  from  his 
preaching  upon  many.  Viewed  in  this  light,  it  is  important  to  observe 
that  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  not  a  system  of  theology  or  exhibition 
of  the  Christian  doctrine  in  its  full  development,  which  was  to  rest 
upon  his  death  and  resurrection  as  its  basis,  and  could  only  be  matured 
by  his  apostles  after  his  departure,  but  under  his  express  authority 
and  the  direction  of  his  Spirit,  so  that  it  is  equally  absurd  and  impious 
to  draw  invidious  distinctions  between  what  was'  taught  by  Christ 
liimself  and  his  apostles,  as  unequal  in  authority.  w’'hereas  the  only 
difference  is  that  between  an  order  uttered  viva  voce,  and  the  same 
transmitted  by  a  letter  or  message.  The  error  here  corrected  is  a 
common  one  with  sceptics  and  half  infidels,  who  are  neither  willing  to 
renounce  all  faith  in  Christ  as  an  authoritative  teacher,  nor  to  receive  all 
the  teachings  of  his  revelation.  Another  error,  which  prevails  more 
among  Christians,  is  that  of  regarding  this  discourse  as  a  system,  not 
'  -of  religious  doctrine,  but  of  ethics  or  morality,  and  endeavouring  to  find 
in  it  specific  formal  rules  of  duty  for  the  various  emergencies  of  com¬ 
mon  life,  an  end  which  can  only  be  attained  by  forced  and  paradoxical 
constructions.  It  is  true  that  the  discourse  is  full  of  the  most  invalu¬ 
able  moral  and  religious  truth,  but  in  a  shape  more  rhetorical  than 
systematic ;  clothed  in  paradox  and  figure  rather  than  in  rule  and 
definition,  and^conveyed  incidentally  rather  than  directly,  as  the  prima¬ 
ry  immediate  end  in  view,  wdiich  was  neither  to  expound  the  doctrines 
of  religion,  nor  to  lay  down  rules  of  conduct,  nor  to  teach  the  true  way 
of  salvation,  but  to  show  the  nature  of  Messiah’s  kingdom,  which  was 
near  at  hand,  and  by  which  the  completed  revelation  of  all  saving  truth, 
was  to  be  made  known  and  perpetuated.  Thus  viewed,  the  Sermon  on — 
the  Mount  is  here  precisely  in  its  proper  place,  if  not  chronologically 
3mt  methodically,  as  a  fuller  exposition  of  the  tlieme  which  had  aTrcady 
been  propounded,  as  treated  of  our  Lord’s  preaching  and  of  John’s  before 


MATTHEW  5-7. 


107 


him,  Repent,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand.”  As  to  the 
nature  of  this  kingdom  there  were  various  errors  current,  and  to  these 
tlie  form  of  the  discourse  has  reference  throughout,  but  more  especially 
to  the  almost  universal  error  of  supposing  that  the  moral  requisitions 
of  tlie  law  were  to  be  set  aside,  and  the  standard  of  duty  as  established 
by  it  lowered  in  Messiah’s  kingdom.  In  opposition  to  this  fatal 
Antinomian  delusion,  it  is  here  taught  that  the  standard  was  rather  to 
be  raised  than  lowered,  by  a  spiritual  exposition  of  the  law’s  demands, 
and  a  full  recognition  of  its  whole  extent  and  constant  obligation,  so 
that  no  one  must  press  into  the  Messiah’s  kingdom  in  the  hope  of 
sinning  more  securely.  This  brings  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  into 
connection  with  the  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai,  which  some  writers 
push  to  an  extreme  as  comprehending  even  the  minutest  outward  cir¬ 
cumstances.  Other  delusive  expectations,  no  less  really  though  less 
conspicuously  combated  and  rectified  in  this  discourse,  are  tho.se  of 
the  bigoted  Jew  who  thought  the  Gentiles  could  not  possibly  be 
saved ;  of  the  revolutionary  zealot  who  expected  all  distinctions  and 
relations  to  be  utterly  subverted  in  the  change  of  di.spensations  ;  of 
the  censorious  moralist  whose  piety  consisted  in  detecting  and  con¬ 
demning  the  defects  of  others  ;  and  of  the  formalist  who  ti  usted  in  a 
ritual  ceremonial  righteousness.  These  and  some  other  current  notions 
with  respect  to  the  Messiah’s  kingdom,  are  corrected  not  always  by 
formal  refutation,  but  in  part  by  pointed  aphorism,  vehement  apostro¬ 
phe,  and  striking  figurative  illustration.  The  plan  or  form  of  the  dis¬ 
course  is  determined  not  by  technical  or  abstract  method,  but  by 
natural  association ;  so  that  the  opposite  charges  of  utter  incoherence 
on  the  one  hand,  and  of  a  plan  so  artificial  on  the  other,  as  to  show 
that  the  discourse  was  never  actually  spoken  in  its  present  form,  but 
afterwards  composed  by  the  historian,  neutralize  and  nullify  each 
other.  The  multiplicity  of  waj'S  in  which  the  passage  has  been  ana¬ 
lyzed,  with  various  degrees  of  plausibility,  confirms  the  fact  already 
stated,  that  it  is  neither  desultory  nor  precise  in  its  arrangement,  but 
at  once  coherent  and  inartificial.  Another  consequence  and  proof  of 
this  is,  that  many  of  the  schemes  which  have  been  thus  proposed  are 
perfectly  compatible  with  one  another,  and  may  be  combined  as  an 
assistance  to  the  memory.  The  conventional  division  of  the  text 
throws  the  sermon  into  three  great  parts.  The  first,  coincident  with 
chapter  V.,  shows  for  whom  the  kingdom  is  designed,  defines  their 
relation  to  the  world,  and  that  of  the  Messiah  to  the  law,  showing  that 
the  moral  standard  of  his  kingdom  would  be  higher  than  that  recog¬ 
nized  by  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  The  second,  answering  to  chap¬ 
ter  VI.,  pursues  the  same  course  with  respect  to  great  religious  duties, 
which  must  be  performed  to  God,  and  not  to  man ;  then  extends  this 
principle  to  every  thing  in  life,  and  shows  that  this  is  the  true  remedy 
for  anxious  cares.  The .  third  part,  chapter  VII.,  after  reproving  the 
censorious  contempt  of  Pharisaical  hypocrites  for  others,  prescribes 
prayer  as  the  true  expression  of  the  faith  before  required,  and  en¬ 
courages  it  by  a  cheering  promise ;  then  sums  up  all  that  has  been 
said  as  to  the  law ;  exhorts  to  self-denial  as  essential  to  salvation  j 


108 


MATTHEW  5,  1. 


warns  against  false  guides  and  false  profession,  and  the  fatal  error  of  not 
acting  upon  these  instructions.  The  details  of  this  analysis  can  only 
be  presented  step  by  step  as  we  proceed  in  the  interpretation. 


CHAPTEE  V. 

Tins  first  division  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  after  giving  the  his¬ 
torical  occasion  of  its  utterance  (1.  2),  desciibes  the  characters  or 
classes  which  had  reason  to  rejoice  in  the  approach  of  the  Messiah’s 
kingdom  (3-10),  the  poor  in  spirit  (3),  mourners  (4),  the  meek  (5), 
the  hungry  and  thirsty  (G),  the  merciful  (7),  the  pure  in  heart  (8), 
the  pacific  (9),  the  persecuted  in  a  good  cause  (10) ;  all  of  whom  are 
here  pronounced  blessed  or  happy  in  the  prospect  of  the  coming  change. 
The  last  of  these  beatitudes  is  then  applied  directly  to  the  hearers 
(11-12),  which  alfords  occasion  to  define  their  relation  to  the  world, 
under  the  figures  of  sa-lt  (13)  and  light  (14.  15);  and  to  exhort  them 
to  good  works  (IG).  This,  in  its  turn,  suggests  the  moral  claims  and 
requisitions  of  the  kingdom,  and  its  relation  to  the  law,  which  is  declared 
to  be  unchangeable — no  less  binding  in  the  new  than  in  the  old  econ¬ 
omy  (17-19).  Nay,  the  moral  standard  in  Messiah’s  kingdom  should 
be  vastly  higher  than  that  of  Pharisaical  Judaism  (20).  This  is  then 
stated  in  detail  with  reference  to  several  prevailing  sins,  which,  far 
from  being  treated  more  indulgently,  would  meet  with  a  severe  censure 
(21-48).  These  are  murder  (21-2G) ;  adultery  (27-30) ;  unauthorized 
divorce  (31.  32 ) ;  unlawful  swearing  (33-37)  ;  I'cvenge  (38-42)  ;  and 
hatred  (43-47)  ;  the  whole  enumeration  being  wound  up  by  present¬ 
ing  the  divine  perfection  as  the  standard  of  morality  and  the  model  to 
be  copied  in  the  kingdom  of  Messiah  (48). 

1.  And  seeing  tlie  multitudes,  lie  went  up  into  a 
mountain  :  and  when  he  was  set,  his  disciples  came  unto 
him  : 

This  verse  is  to  be  read  in  the  closest  connection  with  the  one 
before  it.  There  followed  him  great  multitudes  .  .  .  and  seeing 

the  multitudes^  i.  e.  the  same  which  had  just  been  mentioned,  any 
other  reference  being  wholly  arbitrar}’-  and  unnatural.  This  construc¬ 
tion,  however,  decides  nothing  as  to  the  chronology,  since  the  last 
verses  of  the  preceding  chapter  are  not  descriptive  merely  of  the  fir.st 
crowds  which  attended  him,  but  of  the  concourse  which  attended  his 
whole  ministry.  Those  who  regard  Luke  and  Matthew  as  reporting 
the  same  sermon,  adapt  the  chronology  of  one  to  the  other,  and  insert 
here  various  incidents  recorded  elsewhere.  But  even  upon  that  hypo¬ 
thesis,  we  cannot  improve  IMatthew’s  narrative  by  introducing  what 


109 


MATTHEW  5,  1.  2. 

ho  wixs  directed  or  permitted  to  Iccave  out.  It  was  a  part  of  his  plan 
to  put  together  what  we  find  together  in  tlie  text,  and  all  addifhms 
aliunde  belong  not  so  much  to  the  interpretation  as  to  a  chronological 
synopsis.  He  went  up,  ascended,  not  liabitiially,  but,  as  the  form  of 
the  Greek  verb  denotes,  on  one  particular  occasion.  A  mountain, 
litei-ally,  the  mountain^^  which  may  either  mean  the  one  above  the 
place  where  the  people  were  assembled,  or  the  highlands  as  distin¬ 
guished  from  the  lowlands  of  Palestine,  in  which  generic  sense  the 
Hebrew  word  for  mountain  frequently  occurs.f  If  a  particular  moun¬ 
tain  is  intended,  it  cannot  be  identified,  and  for  that  very  reason  is  of 
no  importance.  The  tradition  of  the  church  of  Korne  has  designated 
as  the  Mount  of  the  Beatitudes,  a  hill  of  singular  configuration,  now 
called  the  Horns  of  Hattin;  but  as  the  Greek  church  has  no  similar 
tradition,  and  the  Roman  cannot  be  traced  further  than  the  thirteenth 
century,  it  is  probably  a  mere  conjecture  of  some  medieval  traveller. 
It  is  not  even  certain,  as  interpreters  infer  from  8,  5,  that  it  was  near 
Capernaum,  since  the  intervals  of  time  are  not  determined  by  the  text 
or  context.  Hamng  sat  down,  cither  for  repose,  or  as  the  customary 
posture  of  a  teacher.  His  disciples,  not  in  the  restricted  sense  of  his 
apostles  (as  in  10,  1.  11,  l,and  elsewhere),  who  may  have  been  appoint¬ 
ed  (compare  Luke  6, 12. 13),  but  have  not  yet  been  referred  to  in  this 
narrative  (see  below,  on  10,  2)  ;  but  in  the  wider  sense  of  hearers,  pupils, 
those  who  listened  to  him  as  a  teacher  come  from  God  (John  3.  2). 
Some  suppose  him  to  have  gone  up  to  avoid  the  multitude,  but  to 
have  been  followed  by  them,  as  their  presence  is  implied  in  the  state¬ 
ment  at  the  end  of  the  discourse.  (Sec  below,  on  7,  28.)  Others  under¬ 
stand  him  simply  to  have  gone  up  higher  on  the  hill-side  so  as  to 
address  the  multitude  below  more  easily.  If  disciples  be  here  taken 
in  its  widest  sense,  no  distinction  may  be  needed  between  them  and 
the  multitude,  who  were  all,  for  the  time  being,  his  disciples,  i.  e. 
learners  in  his  school  or  listeners  to  his  instructions.  Came  to  him, 
as  he  sat  upon  the  mountain,  not  implying  that  they  had  been  absent 
and  now  joined  him,  but  that  they  came  nearer  or  followed  him  when 
he  changed  his  place.  This  might  be  said  cither  of  a  smaller  number, 
or  of  the  whole  multitude. 

2.  And  he  ojoened  his  mouth,  and  taught  them, 
saying. 

Opening  (or  hamng  opened?)  his  mouth,  is  not  a  pleona.sm,  i.  e.  an 
unmeaning  phrase ;  nor  simply  a  periphrasis  for  spahe  (or  began  to 
spealc)  ;  nor  in  antithesis  to  silent  teaching  by  his  looks  or  deeds 
(Chrysostom) ;  nor  an  intimation  that  he  meant  to  speak  long  (Au¬ 
gustine)  ;  but,  as  every  reader  feels,  although  he  may  not  be  able  to 

*  See  below,  on  14,  23.  15,  29.  Mark  fi,  46.  Luke  6,  12.  9,  28.  John  6,  3, 

and  compare  Ex.  2,  15.  Num.  11,  27.  Dent.  18,  16.  Matt.  13,  2. 

+  See  Gen.  12,  8.  14,  10.  19,  17.  Num.  13,  29.  Deut.  1,  2.  Josh.  9,  1. 

14,12.  15,48. 


no 


MATTHEW  5,2.3. 


express  it.  a  formula  deuotiup;  the  commencement  of  a  solemn  and 
autlioritative  utterance  on  an  important  subject.  This  is  not  only  in 
agreement  with  Scripture  and  Hebrew  usage,*  but  with  that  of  the 
classics,  the  same  expression  being  found  both  in  AUschylus  and  Aris¬ 
tophanes,  and  with  the  circumstances  of  the  case  before  us,  in  which 
the  nature  of  Messiah’s  kingdom  was  about  to  be  set  forth  by  the 
Messiah  himself.  Taught^  in  the  imperfect  tense  {was  teaching)^  may 
appear  to  favour  the  assumption  of  a  general  description  of  his  ministry, 
rather  than  of  a  particular  discourse;  but  it  may  also  denote  con¬ 
tinued  speech  as  distinguished  from  a  momentary  utterance. 

3.  Blessed  (are)  tlie  poor  in  spirit  :  for  theirs  is  the 
kin2:dom  of  heaven. 

The  exposition  of  the  nature  of  his  kingdom  opens  with  a  designa¬ 
tion  of  the  characters  and  classes,  who  had  reason  to  rejoice  in  its  erec¬ 
tion.  Not  the  rich  and  worldly,  not  the  prosperous  and  selfish,  not  the 
formal  and  self-righteous,  would  be  rendered  happy  by  the  great  ap¬ 
proaching  change,  but  the  opposite  of  all  these,  who  are  now  described 
in  a  series  of  Ijeatitudes  or  macaris7ns^'\  so  called  from  the  word  with 
which  they  severally  open  (vs.  3-11).  That  there  are  seven  of  these 
beatitudes,  has  been  sometimes  reckoned  a  significant  circumstance, 
connected  with  tlie  frequent  use  of  seven  as  a  sacred  or  symbolical 
number.  The  beatitudes  are  so  far  uniform  in  structure,  that  each 
begins  with  a  description  of  the  class  or  character,  pronounced  by  the 
Saviour  to  be  blessed,  and  concludes  with  a  statement  of  the  ground 
or  reason  of  the  benediction.  Blessed,  a  word  originally  applicable  to 
the  divine  blessedness,  and  that  of  men  admitted,  as  it  were,  to  share 
it,  but  often  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  represent  the  welfare  or 
felicity  of  men  in  this  life,  yet  always  probably  with  reference  to  its 
dependence  on  the  divine  favour,  as  expressed  in  English  by  the  par¬ 
ticiple  blessed,  rather  than  the  adjective  liapjjy.  The  first  beatitude 
(v.  3)  -eems  intended  to  correct  the  false  impression,  that  the  blessings 
of  ISIessiah’s  kingdom  were  reserved  for  the  rich  and  higher  classes  of 
society  ;  whereas  it  'was  intended  more  particularly  for  the  pooi\  but  not 
in  the  more  obvious  and  ordinary  sense  of  the  expression,  which  is 
therefore  qualified  by  the  addition  of  the  phrase  in  spirit.  Of  the 
various  constructions  which  have  been  proposed,  e.  g.  '  blessed  to  the 
Spirit,’  i.  c.  in  God’s  estimation — ‘  blessed  in  spirit,’  though  distressed 
in  body — the  only  one  that  is  entirely  natural,  is  that  which  has  been 
commonly  adopted  in  all  ages,  and  which  construes  in  spirit,^  not  with 
Messed,  but  with  poor^  of  which  it  is  the  necessary  limitation,  as  the 
blessing  here  pronounced  is  not  on  poverty  as  such,  or  as  a  mere  out¬ 
ward  state,  but  on  poverty  of  spirit,  or,  in  modern  phraseology,  spiritual 
poverty.  This  does  not  mean  intellectual  weakness  or  destitution,  but 

*  See  Judg.  11,  35.  36.  Job.  3,  1.  33,  2.  Acts  8,  85.  10,  84.  2  Cor.  6, 11. 
Eph.  6,  19. 

f  MaKapi(riJ.65,  Rom.  4,  6.  9.  Gal.  4,  15. 


MATTHEW  5,3.4. 


Ill 


a  conscious  deficiency  of  moral  goodness  and  of  spiritual  advantages. 
The  antithesis  to  outward  wealth  and  worldly  prosperity,  lies  not  in 
the  unlawfulness  of  that  condition,  or  the  merit  of  its  opposite,  but 
partly  in  the  well-knovrn  fact  of  general  experience,  that  spiritual 
poverty  more  generally  coincides  with  that  of  an  external  kind,  than 
with  its  opposite,  and  partly  in  the  scriptural  usage  of  the  term  'poor^ 
and  some  of  kindred  import  to  denote  the  people  of  the  Lord  collect¬ 
ively  as  sufferers,  and  inevitably  destitute  of  much  that  is  essential  to 
the  worldling’s  happiness.  The  poor,  in  this  sense,  and  in  that  of  feel¬ 
ing  their  own  want  of  spiritual  food,  and  consequent  dependence  on 
divine  grace,  are  pronounced  in  this  verse  blessed  ;  happy,  because  those 
for  whom  that  grace  is  in  reserve,  and  on  whom  it  is  now  to  be  con¬ 
ferred  by  giving  them  the  kingdom,  for  which  Israel  had  so  long  been 
waiting,  as  their  own  rightful  indefeasible  possession.  Theirs^  belonging 
to  them,  as  their  own — so  far  from  being  forcibly  shut  out  of  it,  they 
are  the  very  men  for  whom  it  is  intended  and  prepared.  (See  below, 
on  25,  34).  The  Idngdom  of  heaxen^  literally,  of  the  heavens^  an  allu¬ 
sion,  not  to  the  later  Jewish  notion  of  a  definite  series  or  succession 
of  heavens  (compare  2  Cor.  12,  2.  Eph.  4,  10),  but  to  the  plural  form 
of  the  Hebrew  word  (c-^ts'c)  which  has  no  singular;  a  like  case  being 
that  of  water,  (73“^^),  which  has  led  to  the  frequent  use  of  waters  in  the 

Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  where  the  sense  is  sirapl}'-  that  of  water. 
By  lieaxens.  therefore,  we  are  here  to  understand  nothing  more  than 
heaven^  and  by  this  the  local  residence  of  God,  or  that  part  of  the  universe 
where  he  sensibly  manifests  his  presence  to  his  creatures.  And  as  the 
residence  of  earthly  sovereigns  is  continually  used  to  represent  them¬ 
selves  or  their  authority,  as  in  the  phrases,  the  Sublime  Porte,  the 
court  of  St.  James’s,  and  a  multitude  of  others  equally  familiar,  so 
heaven,  as  the  abode  of  God,  is  sometimes  put  for  God  himself  (see 
Dan.  4.  23.  Luke  15,  18.  21),  and  the  Icmgdoni  of  heaven^  is  precisely 
what  Matthew  elsewhere,  and  the  other  evangelists  everywhere,  call 
the  kingdom  of  God  (see  above,  on  3,  2.  4,  17,  and  compare  Mark  1, 

14.  15.  Luke  4,  43.  John  3,  3.  5.  Acts  1,  3),.  with  particular  reference 
to  its  approaching  restoration  or  erection  by  the  hands  of  Christ  him¬ 
self,  and  on  the  principles  set  forth  in  this  discourse,  beginning  with 
the  pointed  declaration  here  made,  that  its  rights  and  benefits  were  not 
to  be  monopolized,  or  even  shared,  as  a  matter  of  course,  or  of  prerog¬ 
ative  by  the  rich,  but  appropriated  to  the  poor,  i.  e.  the  poor  in  spirit, 
whether  rich  or  poor  in  outward  circumstances  and  condition. 

4.  Blessed  (are)  they  that  mourn  :  for  they  shall  he 
comforted. 

Another  contradiction  to  the  cheri.shcd  expectations  of  the  worldly 
Jews.  The  Messiah’s  kingdom,  far  fi  om  being  regulated  by  existing 
differences  of  condition,  would,  in  many  instances,  reverse  and  nullify 
them.  AVdiat  was  said  licfore  of  poverty,  is  now  said  of  sorrow,  its 
habitual  concomitant.  Blessed.,  in  the  same  sense  as  above,  i.  e.  blos.'^ed 
of  God,  or  rendered  happy  by  his  favour.  The  verb,  which  is  not  ex- 


112 


MATTHEW  5,  4.  5.  6. 


pressed  in  Greek  in  either  case,  is  not  to  be  supplied  in  the  future,  but 
the  present  form,  as  in  the  English  version.  The  declaration  is  not 
that  they  shall  be  happy,  but  that  they  are  already  so,  in  certain  pros¬ 
pect  of  the  coming  consolation.  Here  again  the  limitation  of  the  terms 
expressed  in  the  preceding  verse  must  be  considered  as  implied  or 
understood.  Those  mourning^  the  (ones)  mourning,  in  a  spiritual 
manner,  both  for  s:n  and  for  the  evils  which  flow  from  it.  They,  in 
the  last  clause,  is  emphatic,  because  not  necessary  to  the  sense  in  Greek 
as  it  is  in  English.  It  is  therefore  equivalent  to  e'^en  they,  the  very 
persons  who  seem  now  least  entitled  to  be  called  or  reckoned  happy. 

5.  Blessed  (are)  the  meek  :  for  they  shall  inherit  the 
earth. 

Another  popular  mistake  to  be  corrected  in  relation  to  Messiah’s  king¬ 
dom,  was  the  notion  that  its  honours  and  advantages  were  in  reserve 
for  those  who  could  contend  for  them  and  claim  them,  the  ambitious, 
arrogant,  courageous  class,  who  commonly  monopolize  the  benefits  of 
earthly  kingdoms.  In  antithesis  to  this  erroneous  expectation,  Christ 
pronounces  his  third  blessing  on  a  character  the  opposite  of  all  this. 
Blessed,  happy  in  the  prospect  of  Messiah’s  reign,  and  as  its  chosen 
and  most  favoured  .subjects  {ai'e)  the  mee\  or  mild  and  gentle  (Wiclif, 
mild  men),  as  opposed  by  an  apostle  (I  Peter  3,  4)  to  a  vain  ostentation 
and  connected  with  a  quiet  spirit,  as  of  great  price  in  the  sight  of 
God,  which  seems  to  imply  that  it  is  not  so  in  the  sight  of  men,  who 
rather  pity  and  despise  than  value  or  admire  this  temper.  IMore  espe¬ 
cially  is  this  the  case,  where  courts  and  kingdoms  are  in  question,  so 
that  prophecy  makes  this  a  characteristic  point  of  difference  between 
Messiah’s  kingdom  and  all  others  (see  below,  on  21,  5.  and  compare 
Zeeh.  9,  9.),  that  its  sovereign  was  to  come  to  it,  not  as  a  warrior  and 
a  conqueror,  but  as  a  meek  and  gentle  man  of  peace.  No  wonder, 
therefore,  that  a  kindred  spirit  is  here  represented  as  a  preparation  for 
the  benefits  and  honours  of  that  kingdom,  here  expressed,  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  usage  of  the  old  dispensation,  by  inheriting  the  land,  i.  e. 
the  land  of  Canaan,  as  the  sum  and  local  habitation  of  all  blessings, 
secular  and  spiritual,  promised  to  the  old  believers.  It  is  unnecessary, 
therefore,  to  adopt  the  wider  meaning  inearth),  in  reference  either  to 
the  universal  spread  of  the  Messiah’s  kingdom,  or  to  the  renovated 
earth  as  the  literal  and  future  heritage  of  all  true  Christians. 

6.  Blessed  (are)  they  which  do  hunger  and  thirst  after 
righteousness  :  for  they  shall  be  filled. 

The  fourth  class,  paradoxicall}’-  represented  as  the  destined  heirs 
and  subjects  of  Messiah’s  kingdom,  are  the  hungry  and  thirsty,  as  con¬ 
trasted  with  the  rich  and  well  supplied.  As  this  is  really  a  mere  speci¬ 
fication  of  the  poverty  already  mentioned,  by  presenting  in  relief  and 
in  a  strong  light,  one  of  its  familiar  incidents,  we  learn  that  these  are 


MATTHEW  5,6.7. 


113 


not  be  regarded  a«  precise  definitions  of  distinct  conditions  -which  ex¬ 
clude  each  other,  but  as  varied  aspects  of  the  same  great  object.  The 
relation  of  the  clauses  is  precisely  similar  to  that  in  v.  3,  and  expi-esses 
what  is  only  implied  in  the  intervening  verses.  The  first  words,  taken 
by  themselves,  might  seem  descriptive  of  an  outward  condition,  that 
of  extreme  destitution  even  of  the  ordinary  sources  of  subsistence,  and 
a  promise  of  relief  from  this,  as  one  main  purpose  of  the  coming  king¬ 
dom.  But  lest  this  should  be  received  in  too  confined  and  low  a  sense, 
it  is  immediately  explained  by  adding  righteousness^  i.  e.,  conformity 
to  God’s  will  as  a  tide  to  his  favour,  and  making  this  the  object,  both 
grammatical  and  moral,  of  the  hunger  and  thirst  upon  which  our  Lord 
had  just  pronounced  his  blessing.  This  remarkable  construction,  as 
well  here  as  in  v.  3,  besides  its  rhetorical  beauty,  answers  the  important 
purpose  of  extending  the  beatitude  to  those  who  literally  suffer,  while 
at  the  same  time  it  suggests  the  necessity  of  higher  aims  and  of  more 
spiritual  tastes  and  appetites.  As  if  ho  had  said :  ‘  Do  not  imagine 
that  my  kingdom  is  meant  only  for  those  now  in  the  possession  and 
enjo3’ment  of  abundance,  to  the  utter  exclusion  of  those  suffering  for 
want;  it  is  designed  for  these  especially,  but  only  on  condition  that 
their  hunger  and  their  thirst  extend  to  spiritual  objects  also,  to  con¬ 
formity  with  God’s  will  and  experience  of  his  favour.  Those  who 
have  this  hunger,  whether  rich  or  poor,  shall  assuredly  be  filled 
(Cranmer,  satisfied — Rheims,  hare  their  fill).  The  last  verb  (yoprao-- 
^rjcrovTai)  is  applied  to  the  older  classics  only  to  the  feeding  of  animals, 
but  in  later  Greek  to  that  of  human  subjects  also,  and  in  evei  y  case 
with  the  accessory  idea  of  full  feeding  or  satiety.  The  sense  here  is 
not  a  different  one  from  that  which  the  verb  has  elsewhere  ( see  below. 
14,  20.  15.  33-37),  though  applied  by  a  lively  figure,  to  the  satisfac¬ 
tion  of  a  moral  or  spiritual  appetite. 


7.  Blessed  (are)  tire  merciful  :  for  they  shall  obtain 
mercy. 

This  is  not  a  general  declaration  of  the  principle  so  clearly  stated 
elsewhere,  that  a  forgiving  disposition  is  an  indispensable  condition  of 
our  own  forgiveness  (see  below,  C,  14.  15),  which  would  here  be  out  of 
place ;  but  a  continued  designation  of  the  characters  or  classes,  for 
whose  benefit  the  kingdom  was  to  be  erected,  although  commonly  ex¬ 
cluded  from  all  such  advantages.  The  most  successful  and  distinguished 
in  the  kingdoms  of  this  world  arc  too  often  the  revengeful  and  impla¬ 
cable,  the  clement  and  forgiving  being,  as  it  were,  disqualified  for  such 
distinction  by  this  very  disposition.  But  in  my  kingdom  it  shall  not 
be  so.  Happy  already,  in  the  prospect  of  its  prompt  erection,  are  the 
merciful,  the  very  class  so  shamefully  neglected  in  all  other  kingdoms, 
but  in  mine  to  be  treated  according  to  their  nature.  As  they  have 
been  merciful  to  others,  so  will  I  be  merciful  to  them.  As  they  have 
spared  others,  so  will  I  spare  them,  and  give  them  a  distinguished 
place  among  my  subjects. 


114 


MATTHEW  5,8. 

8.  Blessed  (are)  the  pure  in  heart :  for  they  shall  see 
God. 

There  is  more  obscui  u.y  in  this  verse  than  in  those  immcdiatch^ 
preceding’,  both  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  clauses  and  their  mutual  rela¬ 
tion,  or  the  reason  given  for  the  benediction.  Pure  in  l.eart  (Eheims, 
clean  of  heart)  is  a  phrase  precisely  similar  to  poor  in  spirit  (v.  3),  and 
determines  its  true  construction,  as  the  dative  here  (r^  Kapdla)  must 
qualify  the  adjective  before  it,  by  denoting  where  the  purity  required 
resides,  or  wherein  it  consists.  But  although  the  words  admit  of  only 
one  grammatical  construction,  there  is  some  diversity  of  judgment  as 
to  the  precise  sense  of  the  whole  phrase,  pitre  in  heart,  which  may  be 
taken  either  specifically,  as  denoting  freedom  from  particular  impuri¬ 
ties,  or  more  generically,  as  denoting  freedom  from  the  polluting  in¬ 
fluence  of  sin.  On  the  former,  which  is  the  more  usual  supposition, 
the  particular  impurity  denied  is  commonly  assumed  to  be  what  the 
Scriptures  call  comprehending  all  violations  of  the  seventh 

commandment,  in  heart,  speech,  or  behaviour.  Some,  however,  who 
admit  the  specific  iu^poi't  of  the  phrase,  apply  it  to  In’pocrisy,  deceit, 
and  falsehood,  and  hj  pmre  in  heart  understand  sincere  and  guileless  ; 
while  a  third  interpretation  gives  it  the  generic  sense  of  sinless,  hol}^ 
The  first,  which  is  the  usual  explanation  of  the  phrase,  assumes  as  the 
necessary  meaning  of  the  vrord  pjure  wdiat  is  rather  a  modern  limita¬ 
tion  of  its  import,  and  is  also  less  in  keeping  with  the  context,  as  we 
liave  no  reason  to  believe,  that  any  of  Christ’s  licarers  thought  that  the 
lascivious  or  incontinent  would  have  any  advantage  over  the  modest 
and  the  chaste  in  his  kingdom.  The  same  objection  lies  in  some  degree 
against  the  third  interpretation,  as  too  vague  and  comprehensive,  ar.-d 
as  no  one  could  imagine  that  impurity  in  this  wide  sense  would  profit 
them  as  subjects  of  the  kingdom.  The  remaining  sense  of  freedom 
from  deceitfulness  and  falsehood  avoids  botli  objections,  being  suffi¬ 
ciently  specific  or  descriptive  of  a  particular  moral  quality,  and  that 
one  which  is  too  much  slighted  and  too  often  outraged  in  the  kingdoms 
of  this  world. — 1 1  may  be  that  the  cunning  and  the  hypocritical  are  com¬ 
monly  successful,  and  that  the  honest  and  sincere  are  losers  by  that  very 
quality ;  but  I  say,  happv  arc  the  pure  in  this  respect,  for  they  shall 
see  God.  Some  who  understand  p)ure  in  heart  as  meaning  free  from 
caimal  lusts,  suppose  an  intimate  connection  between  that  exemption 
and  the  capacity  to  see  God,  or  a  peculiar  tendency  of  such  sins  to 
obscure  tlie  view  of  His  divine  perfection.  But  hov\ever  correct  tliis 
may  be  in  point  of  fact,  it  is  in  elevant  in  this  connection,  where  analogy 
requires  that  this  clause  sliould  assign  a  reason  for  the  class  in  question 
being  counted  happy ;  and  as  the  corresponding  clauses  in  the  five 
preceding  verses  all  express  in  various  forms  the  fact  that  those  referred 
to  shall  experience  the  divine  favour  in  the  reign  of  the  IMessiah.  the 
most  natural  interpretation  of  the  clause  before  us  is,  that  the  sincere 
and  undisguised  shall  stand  in  the  divine  presence  as  his  honoured 
servants  and  the  objects  of  his  special  favour.  There  is  then  no  al¬ 
lusion  to  the  beatific  vision,  or  to  chastity  as  specially  preparing  the 


MATTHEW  5,  7.  8.  9. 


115 


soul  for  it,  but  a  simple  intimation  that  sincerity  and  simplicity  of 
purpose,  wliich  often  shuts  men  out  from  tlie  service  and  the  presence 
of  an  earthly  sovereign,  will  in  this  case  have  the  contrary  eflect  of 
enabling  and  entitling  those  who  practise  it  to  see  God. 

9.  Blessed  (are)  tire  peacemakers  :  for  they  shall  he 
.called  the  children  of  God. 

Another  current  fallacy  in  reference  to  the  kingdom  of  IMessiah, 
was  the  notion  that  like  other  kingdoms  it  must  rest  on  war  and  con¬ 
quest,  with  the  necessary  consequence  that  those  who  make  war  are 
its  most  distinguished  subjects,  and  entitled  to  its  highest  honours.  Our 
>Saviour  teaches,  on  the  contrary,  that  this  pre-eminence  belongs  to  the 
opposite  character  of  those  who  makepeace.^  not  merely  in  the  secondary 
sense  of  practising  or  cherishing  it,  but  in  the  primary  and  proper 
sense  of  reconciling  those  who  are  at  strife.  Xenophon  and  Plutarch 
use  the  same  word  of  ambassadors  commissioned  to  negotiate  a  peace. 
This,  while  it  includes  the  other  sense  of  peaceable,  pacihc,  strengthens 
the  expression  by  suggesting  a  positive  act,  strongly  demonstrative  of 
such  a  disposition.  Nothing  can  so  clearly  prove  one  to  be  peaceful  in 
his  own  temper  and  practice  as  an  efibrt  to  make  peace  or  maintain  it 
betweon  others.  The  English  version  therefore  is  correct,  and  to  be 
taken  in  its  proper  sense. — There  is  no  need  of  assuming  any  definite 
relation  between  this  specific  character  and  the  reward  promised  to  it 
in  the  last  clause  ;  as  if  the  peaceable  were  in  any  peculiar  sense  the 
sons  of  God.  According  to  the  context,  this  is  only  another  varied 
statement  of  the  fact,  that  those  who  have  this  character,  instead  of 
being  slighted  as  in  earthly  kingdoms,  shall  be  highly  favoured.  As 
the  pure  in  heart  shall  see  God,  i.  e.  be  admitted  to  his  royal  presence, 
so  the  peacemakers  shall  be  reckoned  as  his  sons  and  heirs.  Shall  he 
called  is  not  a  Hebrew  idiom  for  shall  he^  but  suggests  the  additional 
idea,  in  the  present  case,  of  oral  recognition,  and  perhaps  of  formal 
registration.  They  who  practise  and  make  peace,  however  little  hon¬ 
oured  in  the  kingdoms  of  this  world,  shall  be  named,  and  accosted,  and 
proclaimed  in  the  kingdom  of  Messiah,  not  only  as  the  servants  but 
the  sons  of  God  ! 

10.  Blessed  (are)  they  which  are  persecuted  for  right¬ 
eousness'  sake  :  tor  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

The  last  class  mentioned,  who  might  seem  to  be  excluded  from  the 
honours  of  a  kingdom,  but  whom  Christ  exalts  to  high  distinction  in 
His  own,  are  the  persecuted.^  those  vindictively  pursued  by  enemies 
superior  in  power.  The  figure,  borrowed  from  the  chase  and  war, 
denotes  not  simply  violence,  however  cruel,  but  pensistent  enmity  and 
power  to  indulge  it.  Men  are  not  said  to  be  persecuted  by  inferiois, 
nor  with  strict  propriety  by  equals,  but  by  those  above  them,  as  by  a 
hostile  government  or  ruler.  This  concluding  macarism  or  beatitude 
may  seem  at  first  sight  out  of  keeping  with  the  rest,  as  it  describes 


IIG 


MATTHEW  5,10.11. 


not  a  character  but  a  condition  arising  from  the  act  of  others.  But  a 
sufficient  bond  of  union  or  assimilating  circumstance,  is  the  supposed 
unfitness  of  tlie  class  described  to  share  the  honours  of  a  might}^ 
kingdom.  As  the  poor,  the  sorrowful,  the  meek,  the  hungiy,  the  sin¬ 
cere,  the  peaceful,  are  the  least  likely  to  attain  distinction  in  an  earthly 
state,  the  same  may  be  still  more  emphatically  said  of  those  who  are 
under  its  displeasure,  nay,  subjected  to  its  persecution.  Another 
answer  to  the  same  objection,  which  is  merely  one  of  form  and  not  of 
substance,  is  that  the  condition  mentioned  in  the  first  clause  is  con¬ 
verted  into  a  description  of  character  by  the  qualifying  words  that 
follow.  The  blessing  is  not  pronounced  on  all  who  sutler  persecution 
for  whatever  cause,  but  on  those  who  are  pursued  for  righteousness’ 
sake,  i.  e.  because  of  their  own  rectitude,  or  conformity  to  the  divine 
wdll,  as  in  v.  6  above.  There  can  be  no  reference  here  to  justification  or 
to  justice  in  the  abstract,  but  to  what  is  7ig]it  in  character  and  conduct, 
as  opposed  to  what  is  wrong.  So  far  are  such  from  being  shut  out  of  the 
Messiah’s  kingdom,  as  the  Jewdsh  rulers  might  imagine  in  relation  to 
their  own  rebellious  subjects  that  the  kingdom  really  belonged  to 
them,  was  theirs,  the  same  expression  that  had  been  applied  already 
to  the  poor  in  spirit  (v.  3).  Thus,  by  a  beautiful  reiteration  of  his 
own  expressions,  he  comes  back  to  the  point  from  which  he  started, 
in  declaring  for  whose  sake  His  kingdom  was  to  be  erected,  or  of 
wffiom  it  was  to  be  composed. — Not  the  rich,  the  gay,  the  fierce,  the 
full,  the  cunning,  the  warlike,  or  the  favourites  of  earthly  rulers,  were 
as  such,  to  be  distinguished  in  His  kingdom  ;  but  the  poor,  the  sorrow¬ 
ful,  the  meek,  the  hungry,  the  sincere,  the  peaceful,  and  the  persecuted, 
wffio  endured  all  this  for  His  sake,  and  who  longed  for  spiritual  no  less 
than  for  secular  relief. 

11.  Blessed  are  ye,  when  (men)  shall  revile  yon,  and 
persecute  (you),  and  shall  say  all  manner  of  evil  against 
you  falsely,  for  my  sake.  / 

Thus  far  the  macarisms  have  a  general  or  abstract  form,  without 
special  reference  or  application  to  the  hearers.  But  our  Lord  now 
takes  occasion,  by  the  sudden  introduction  of  the  second  person  plural, 
to  remind  them  that  these  vague  propositions,  as  they  may  have 
seemed  to  them,  had  a  specific  and  a  proximate  bearing  on  their  own 
condition.  This  he  does  by  repeating  and  applying  to  themselves  the 
last  benediction  in  the  series,  but  by  implication  making  the  same  use 
of  all  the  others.  Having  said  in  general,  that  even  the  persecuted,  if 
for  doing  right  and  not  for  doing  wrong  (compare  1  Peter  2,  20.  3,  17), 
are  to  be  counted  happy  on  account  of  their  prospective  honours  in  his 
kingdom,  he  turns  as  it  were,  suddenly  to  his  disciples,  in  the  wider 
sense  of  such  as  listened  to  his  teachings  wuth  respect,  and  tells  them 
that  this  is  true  of  them  as  well  as  others.  Blessed  are  ye,  happy  are 
you,  when  this  is  your  experience.  This  is  at  once  an  intimation  that 
the  previous  instructions  are  not  merely  theoretical  but  practical,  and 
a  benignant  warning  to  his  followers  of  what  they  must  expect  if  they 


MATTHEW  5,11.12. 


117 


continued  in  his  service.  '  I  speak  of  persecution  as  of  something  real, 
something  known  to  the  experience  of  men,  and  hereafter  to  be  not 
unknown  to  yours,  but  entitling  you  to  share  in  the  blessing  which  I 
have  just  uttered.’  W/ie?i,  &c.,  is  in  Greek  a  more  contingent  expres¬ 
sion  than  in  English,  the  verb  being  not  in  the  future,  but  the  aorist 
and  the  whole  phrase  approaching  very  near  to  the  English,  ‘if  they 
should  at  any  time  revile,’  &c.,  but  suggesting  more  distinctly  the  idea 
that  they  certainly  will  do  so.  The  full  sense  may  be  thus  expressed 
in  paraphrase  :  ‘  if  they  ever  should  revile  you,  as  they  will,’  &c.  The 
form  of  expression  is  still  more  indelinite  in  Greek,  where  men  is  not 
expressed,  nor  even  they,  the  person  and  number  being  indicated  by 
the  verbs  themselves.  They  is,  however,  more  exact  than  men,  which 
makes  the  statement  too  generic,  as  relating  to  mankind  at  large, 
whereas  the  pronoun  already  suggests  the  real  subject  of  the  verbs,  to 
wit,  the  unbelieving  Jews,  and  more  especially  their  rulers.  Temle, 
reproach,  abuse  you,  to  your  face,  as  distinguished  from  the  back¬ 
bitings  afterwards  referred  to.  Persecute,  may  either  be  generic,  and 
include  the  other  form  of  evil  treatment  mentioned  in  this  verse ;  or, 
which  agrees  better  with  its  intermediate  position,  a  specific  term, 
denoting  acts  of  persecution,  not  expressed  by  either  of  the  others,  or 
active  as  distinguished  from  oral  persecution.  All  manner  of  evil, 
literally,  every  iviclced  word,  which  last  (p^/xa)  is  omitted  by  the  latest 
critics,  and  by  most  interpreters  explained  as  an  example  of  the 
Hebrew  idiom,  which  uses  word  as  an  equivalent  for  thing.  But  such 
cases,  which  have  been  unduly  multiplied  even  in  Hebrew,  are  ex¬ 
tremely  rare  in  the  New  Testament,  and  not  to  be  assumed  without 
necessity,  which  certainly  has  no  existence  here,  as  the  strict  sense  is 
entirely  appropriate,  and  far  more  expressive  than  the  secondary  and 
diluted  one.  The  epithet  loiched  then  applies,  not  to  the  conduct 
charged  by  the  calumniator,  but  to  the  malignant  calumny  itself. 
Falsely,  literally,  lying,  is  omitted  by  the  latest  critics,  but  on  insuf¬ 
ficient  grounds,  and  is  necessarily  implied,  if  not  expressed.  For  my 
sahe.  because  (or  on  account)  of  me,  i.  e.  as  being  my  disciples,  or 
believers  in  my  claim  to  the  Messiahship,  and  therefore  avowed  subjects 
of  my  kingdom.  Such  is  the  treatment  which  he  warns  them  to  expect, 
as  his  professed  followers,  and  such  the  consolation  which  he  gives 
them.  They  must  have  tribulation  in  his  service ;  but  for  that  very 
reason  he  pronounces  them  blessed. 

12.  Kejoice,  and  be  exceeding  glad  :  for  great  (is)  your 
reward  in  heaven  :  for  so  persecuted  they  the  prophets 
which  were  before  you. 

So  far  was  this  premonition  of  their  sufferings  in  his  cause  from 
requiring  or  justifying  grief,  that  they  were  positively  bound  to  glory 
and  rejoice  in  the  assurance,  as  he  here  encourages  and  orders  them  to  do. 
Be  exceeding  glad  (the  advei'b  wanting  in  the  older  versions)  is  a  pai  a- 
phrastic  version  of  a  single  word  (dynXKiaa&e),  a  Hellenistic  verb,  sup¬ 
posed  by  some  to  be  made  out  of  a  Hebrew  one,  and  often  used  in  the 


118 


MATTHEW  5,  12.  13. 


Septuagint  version  to  represent  one  of  the  synonymous  expressions  for 
extreme  joy  or  triumph.  Combined  with  the  ordinary  Gi  eek  word  for 
rejoicing  (;(fuperf),  it  denotes  the  highest  and  most  active  exultation,  as 
opposed  to  the  depressioii  and  alarm,  which  such  a  prospect  might  natur¬ 
al  !y  be  expected  to  produce.  The  reason  of  this  paradoxical  command  is 
given  in  the  next  clause.  Reward  here  means  compensation  or  indemnity 
for  what  they  were  to  softer,  without  any  implication  of  legal  merit  or 
even  moral  worthiness.  In  heaven^  not  in  a  state  of  future  blcssednes.s, 
which  makes  the  consolation  too  remote,  but  in  the  court  or  presence 
of  God  (see  above,  on  v.  3),  and  in  his  present  favour.  Rejoice  even  in 
your  sulferings,  because  there  is  abundant  compensation  in  reserve  for 
you,  secured  by  the  divine  decree,  and  ready  for  you  in  the  divine  pres¬ 
ence.  The  last  clause  may  be  dependent  in  construction,  either  on  the 
first  or  second.  On  the  latter  supposition,  it  assigns  a  reason  why 
their  compensation  would  be  great ;  on  the  former,  an  additional 
reason  for  rejoicing,  namely,  that  they  only  shared  the  fate  of  the  best 
men  before  them.  The  subject  of  the  verb  here  is  the  same  as  in  the 
first  clause,  to  wit,  the  unbelieving  Jews,  as  repre.sented  by  their 
wicked  rulers.  Those  (literally  the)  before  yon  is  an  explanatory  phrase 
subjoined  to  specify  the  2)T0phets^  though  the  refei'cnce  is  of  cour.se, 
and  necessarll}",  to  those  who  went  befoie  them,  unless  we  assume  an 
implied  allusion  to  the  prophets,  or  inspired  men,  who  were  yet  to 
suiter.  From  the  mention  of  the  prophets,  some  infer  that  these  words 
are  addressed  to  the  apostles,  or  to  such  as  were  to  hold  that  office, 
and  who  might  be  i-epresented  as  successors  to  the  prophets.  But  it 
seems  more  natural  to  understand  the  prophets  as  the  representatives 
of  all  good  Jews,  or  of  the  spiritual  Israel,  and  the  priority  ascribed 
to  them  as  simply  chronological,  and  not  that  of  official  succession. 
The  sense  will  then  be,  that  the  follow'ers  of  Christ  had  no  cause  to 
despond,  or  even  to  be  cast  down,  in  the  prospect  of  inevitable  suffer¬ 
ing  for  his  sake,  since  the  same  distresses  had  befallen  the  most  pious 
of  their  predecessors,  as  they  well  knew  from  the  history  of  the 
ancient  prophets  in  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Another  purpose 
answered  by  this  verse,  besides  that  of  direct  encouragement,  is  that 
of  intimating  to  the  hearer.s,  the  connection  of  the  new  kingdom  now 
to  be  established  with  the  old  theocracy  or  Jewi.sh  church,  whose  most 
authoritative  representatives  the  prophets,  are  here  mentioned  as  belong¬ 
ing  to  the  same  class  and  experiencing  the  same  opposition  as  awaited 
all  the  followers  of  Christ. 

13.  Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth  :  hut  if  the  salt  have 
lost  his  savour,  wherewith  shall  it  ho  salted  ?  it  is 
thenceforth  good  for  nothing^  hut  to  he  cast  out,  and  to 
he  trodden  under  foot  of  men. 

Having  now  applied  directly  to  his  hearers  and  disciples  the  pre¬ 
ceding  promises  and  benedictions,  and  particulaily  that  which  had 
respect  to  persecution,  our  Lord  takes  occasion  to  define  still  more 


MATTHEW  5,13. 


119 


precisely  the  relation  of  his  followers,  as  a  separate  body,  to  man¬ 
kind  at  large.  Their  distinct  existence,  as  a  peculiar  people,  if  not 
as  an  organized  society,  had  been  implied  already  in  the  warning 
against  persecution,  presupposing  two  antagonistic  parties,  and  at  once 
suggesting  the  inquiry,  how  are  they  related  to  each  other?  The 
solution  of  this  question,  far  finm  being  designed  merely  to  indulge  an 
idle  curiosity,  is  strictly  and  immediately  promotive  of  our  Lord’s 
main  purpose  in  this  whole  discourse,  which  was,  as  we  have  seen,  to 
Set  forth  the  true  nature  of  his  kingdom,  and  the  principles  on  which 
it  was  to  be  administered.  To  this  end  it  was  obviously  necessary 
that  his  hearers  should  be  taught,  of  whom  the  kingdom  was  to  be 
composed,  and  what  effect  it  was  to  have  upon  the  world  around  it. 
This  is  here  propounded  in  two  beautiful  comparisons,  or  rather  meta¬ 
phors,  derived  from  every-day  experience,  and  admirably  suited  to 
illustrate  the  important  truth  to  be  communicated  and  enforced  (vs. 
13—16.)  The  first  of  these  similitudes  is  given  in  the  verse  before  us. 
Ye^  not  the  apostles,  of  whose  organization  we  have  yet  had  no 
account,  much  less  the  Christian  ministry,  except  so  far  as  what 
is  true  of  the  whole  body  is  emphaticalh^  true  of  its  chief  members. 
The  immediate  objects  of  address  are  still  the  multitudes^  or  lalher 
the  disciyles^  of  the  first  verse,  i.  e.  such,  among  his  many  hearer.s,  as 
acknowledged  his  authority  to  teach,  and  received  his  doctrine  as  di¬ 
vinely  sanctioned.  The  scope  of  the  discourse  is  greatly  narrowed,  and 
its  force  impaii’ed  by  making  it  a  mere  official  charge,  while  every 
advantage  that  can  be  regarded  as  attending  that  mode  of  interpreta¬ 
tion,  is  abundantly  secured,  without  the  loss  of  others  equal  1}^  impor¬ 
tant,  by  a  simple  application  of  the  principle  already  stated,  that  the 
same  thing  which  is  absolutely  true  of  all,  may  be  specially  or  rela¬ 
tively  true  of  some.  Ye  (or  you)  then,  who  now  hear  me.  or  at  least 
so  many  of  you  as  believe  my  teachings  and  profess  to  be  my  follow¬ 
ers.  This  is  the  hrst  trace  of  a  distinguishing  profession  in  the  narra¬ 
tive,  although  the  separation  may  have  taken  place  before  and  only 
been  formally  recognized  on  this  occasion.  Are^  not  are  to  be  or  shall 
be,  but  already  are,  and  that  not  merely  in  my  pui-pose  and  your  own 
destination,  but  in  actual  and  present  influence,  impl3ing  that  the 
sifting  process  had  begun,  and  that  the  line  was  drawn  between  the 
world  and  the  church,  though  not  yet  .so  expressly  called.  (See  below, 
on  16,  18.  18,  17.)  Salt  is  among  the  most  familiar  and  necessary 
substances  employed  in  cotnmon  life,  and  therefore  admirably  suited  to 
illustrate  truth,  for  the  instruction  of  a  great  mixed  multitude,  like 
that  which  Christ  addre.ssed  on  this  occasion.  The  domestic  use  of 
salt  is  twofold  ;  first,  to  season  that  which  is  insipid  ;  and  then,  to  pre¬ 
serve  that  which  is  corru{)tible.  In  both  respects  there  is  an  obvious 
analogy  between  the  physical  cfTccts  of  salt  and  the  moral  influence 
exerted  by  the  church  or  the  collective  body  of  Christ’s  followers. 
They  give  or  ought  to  give,  a  spiritual  relish  or  sapiditv  to  what  would 
otherwise  be  stale,  flat,  and  unprofitable,  in  the  knowledge,  occupations, 
and  enjoyments  of  mankind  ;  and  by  so  doing,  they  pre.serve  society, 
or  what  the  Scriptures  call  the  world,  from  that  disintegration  and 


120 


MATTHEW  5,13. 

corruption,  to  which  all  that  is  human  naturally  tends,  except  so  far 
as  this  destructive  tendency  is  counteracted  by  the  antiseptic  remedies 
which  grace  employs,  and  among  which  is  the  influence  exerted  by  the 
followers  of  Christ  considered  as  the  salt  of  the  earth.  This  last  ex¬ 
pression  does  not  imply,  that  salt  is  here  referred  to  as  a  manure  or 
fructifying  substance  in  the  processes  of  husbandly.  The  phrase 
cast  out.  which  afterwards  occurs,  points  rather  to  domestic  uses, 
the  idea  naturally  suggested  to  the  mind  of  every  reader;  and 
the  word  earif  as  in  many  other  cases,  may  be  put  for  its  inhabitants, 
and  correspond  exactly  to  the  world  of  the  next  verse.  All  this  is 
readily  suggested  by  the  metaphor  itself,  as  given  in  the  first  clause. 
But  in  order  to  prevent  their  looking  merely  at  the  honour  and  dis¬ 
tinction  necessarily  implied  in  the  position  thus  assigned  them,  he  pro¬ 
ceeds  to  set  forth,  still  more  fully  and  expresslj'',  the  responsibility 
and  danger  which  accompan}^  this  eminence,  employing  for  this  purpose 
the  same  figure  which  he  had  already  used,  and  carrying  out  into 
detail  the  metaphor  of  salt.  The  first  clause,  by  itself,  supposes  that 
the  salt  performs  its  office  and  accomplishes  its  purpose ;  but  the 
next  suggests  the  possibility  of  failure  and  its  necessary  consequence. 
But^  introducing  quite  a  different  hypothesis  from  that  of  the  pre¬ 
ceding  clause,  if  implying  not  a  certain  but  a  possible  contingency,  the 
saf  emplo3^ed  for  either  of  the  purposes  before  described,  hare  lost  his 
savour^  or  in  modern  phrase,  its  taste  (Cranmer,  saltness.)  This  is  a 
paraphrastic  version  of  a  single  Greek  word  (/McoparS^),  a  passive  verb 
derived  from  an  adjective  (iicopos)  which  commonly  means  foolish  (as 
in  V.  22  below),  but  is  also  applied  to  inaminate  objects,  in  the  sense 
of  tasteless  or  insfid,  by  the  same  natural  analogy  which  leads  us  to 
employ  the  noun  taste.,  to  describe  both  mental  and  bodily  impressions. 
It  matters  not  which  of  these  uses  is  regarded  as  the  primar^q  and 
which  as  the  derivative.  The  verb,  according  to  its  etymology  and 
form,  means  to  deprive  of  sense  in  one  case,  and  of  taste  or  savour  in 
the  other  ;  and  the  passive  tense,  here  used  in  reference  to  salt,  can 
only  mean,  he  made  insipid,  rendered  tasteless,  or,  to  coin  a  single  word 
for  the  occasion,  he  unsalted.  There  is  no  need  of  appealing  to  the 
fact,  alleged  by  travellers,  that  large  masses  of  such  saltlcss  salt  have 
been  actually  met  with  in  the  east.  The  force  of  the  comparison  does 
not  depend  upon  the  literal  occurrence  of  such  changes,  but  is  rather 
enhanced  by  their  supposed  impossibility.  Even  supposing  that  sal  t  can¬ 
not  lose  its  savour,  and  that  its  doing  so  is  merely  mentioned  as  a  mon¬ 
strous  and  imaginary  case,  it  onlj’’  serves  the  better  to  illustrate  the  con¬ 
tingency,  here  meant  to  be  suggested,  of  a  body  or  society  created  to 
preserve  and  season  all  around  it,  and  itself  becoming  destitute  of  what  it 
was  intended  and  commanded  to  impart  to  others.  The  question  which 
follows  has  been  variously  interpreted.  Tyndale’s  version  {what  can 
he  salted  thereioitlif),  SiTid  Cranmer’s  (^lohat  shall  he  seasoned  therc- 
icith  F),  not  only  weaken,  but  entirely  change  the  sense,  and  are  w’holly 
ungrammatical,  without  an  arbitrary  change  of  text  {rl  for  eu  rivt.) 
The  Geneva  Bible  rendei-s  it,  wherewith  shall  one  salt?  (or,  as  it  might 
have  been  translated  more  exactly,  wherewith  shall  he  salted  F)  i.  e.  if 


121 


MATTHEW  5,  13.  14. 

the  salt  have  lost  its  saltness,  what  can  be  substituted  for  it  in  the 
seasoning  of  food  or  in  its  preservation?  This  is  a  possible  construc¬ 
tion  and  a  good  sense,  but  less  striking  and  emphatic  than  the  one 
extracted  from  the  words  by  the  oldest  and  most  usual  interpretation, 
which  makes  salt  itself  the  subject  of  the  verb,  and  understands  the 
question  to  be,  what  shall  season  it,  when  it  has  lost  its  savour? 
WherewitIi^Y\iQY2i\\j in  e.  in  (the use  of)  what  (means)?  Shall 

it  he  is  not  so  strong  as  can  it  he,  but  more  expressive,  as  the  impossi¬ 
bility  is  really  suggested  by  the  certain  futurity.  What  never  will  be 
virtually  never  can  be.  The  inevitable  answer,  Nothing,  is  more  for¬ 
cible  when  left  to  be  supplied,  than  if  it  were  expressed.  But  in  the 
last  clause  it  is  amplified  and  carried  out  in  positive  expressions,  which 
apply  directly  to  the  salt,  but  more  remotely  to  the  person  or  the  body 
which  it  represents.  Thenceforth,  literally,  yet,  still,  longer,  i.  e.  after 
it  has  lost  its  saltness.  Good  for  nothing,  the  phrase  used  in  all  the 
English  versions,  but  the  oldest  (Wiclif,  to  nothing  it  is  ^corth  over)  is 
an  idiomatic  or  proverbial  expression,  not  exactly  corresponding  to  the 
form  of  the  original,  which  strictl}'-  means  not  good  but  strong,  suggest¬ 
ing  the  idea  not  of  worth  or  value  merely,  but  of  strength  or  efficacy. 
It  avails  (utxv€l)  for  nothing  more.  This  negation  is  made  still  more 
striking  by  a  sort  of  ironical  exception  in  the  last  clause.  But  (not 
Se  or  aWa,  but  ei  /i//),  except,  if  not,  to  he  cast  out,  &c.  It  is  only  good 
enough  and  strong  enough  to  be  thrown  away,  and  instead  of  being 
used,  to  he  trampled  on,  or  trodden  under  foot.  Of  {}.  e.  hy)  men,  does 
not  seem  to  be  emphatic,  unless  the  definite  expression,  the  men,  bo 
supposed  to  mean  the  very  men  who  might  have  used  it  or  did  actually 
use  it  till  it  lost  its  savour.  The  allusion,  which  some  find  here,  to  tho 
formal  degradation  of  unworthy  ministers,  supposes  a  restricted  appli¬ 
cation  of  the  passage,  which  has  been  already  shown  to  be  untenable, 
and  is  only  true  as  a  particular  example  of  the  general  truth  taught, 
that  when  the  church,  or  any  of  its  members,  fail  to  exercise  the  salu¬ 
tary  influence  for  which  they  were  created,  they  become  not  only  abso¬ 
lutely  worthless,  but  just  objects  of  contempt  to  those  who  ought  to 
have  revered  them,  and  been  benefited  by  them. 

14.  Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world.  A  city  that  is  set 
on  a  hill  cannot  be  hid. 

To  the  metaphor  of  salt  is  now  added  that  of  light,  a  still  more 
es.sential  element  of  comfort  in  domestic  life.  Tlie  form  of  the  declara¬ 
tion  is  the  same  as  in  v.  13,  with  the  single  change  of  earth  to  world. 
The  Greek  word  (Koapos),  which  primarily  signifies  order  or  sym¬ 
metrical  arrangement,  is  applied  to  the  structure  and  harmonious 
system  of  the  universe  (as  in  13,  35.  24,  21  below) ;  then  to  that  part 
of  it  which  man  inhabits  (as  in  4,  8  above)  ;  and  by  a  natural  metony¬ 
my  to  men  themselves,  as  in  the  case  before  us.  There  is  no  promi¬ 
nence  here  given  (as  in  John  17,  9.  14,  and  often  elsewhere)  to  the  fact 
that  this  world  is  a  wicked  world,  though  really  implied  or  presupposed. 
The  main  idea  is  that  of  mankind  or  of  human  society,  of  which  our 
Q 


122 


MATTHEW  5,14.15. 

Lord  declares  nis  followers  to  be  the  light.  In  this,  as  in  the  other 
case,  tlie  reference  is  not  to  recondite  or  latent  but  to  obvious  and 
familiar  points  of  correspondence.  The  thought  necessarily  suggested 
to  the  mass  of  hearers  would  be  that  of  communicating  knowledge, 
rectifying  eri'or,  and  dispelling  the  gloom  which  is  inseparable  from  a 
state  of  spiritual  ignorance,  iniplying  alienation  from  the  only  source 
of  truth  and  goodness.  This  office  was  to  be  performed,  this  influence 
exerted,  by  the  follow^ers  of  Christ,  as  individuals  and  as  a  body.  But 
again,  as  in  the  former  case,  the  simple  lesson,  taught  by  the  similitude 
itself,  is  amplified  and  guarded  against  all  abuse,  by  carrjdng  the  illus¬ 
tration  out  into  detail.  What  is  thus  added  is  essentially  the  same  in 
either  case,  to  wit,  that  the  agency  which  fails  of  its  effect  is  worthless. 
Salt,  in  order  to  be  valuable,  must  have  saltness.  Light,  in  order 
to  be  valuable,  must  be  seen.  The  illuminating  influence  of  Christ’s 
disciples  is  a  nullity  without  actual  diffusion  upon  their  part, 
and  actual  perception  on  the  part  of  others.  To  claim  the  character 
without  acting  in  accordance  with  it,  were  as  foolish  as  to  build 
a  town  upon  a  hill  and  then  expect  it  to  be  unseen.  Its  position 
is  designed  to  make  it  more  conspicuously  visible,  and  any  thing  at 
variance  with  this  design  is  not  onlj^  inconsistent  but  self-contradictory 
and  suicidal.  It  is  in  vain,  therefore,  for  the  church  or  any  part  of  it, 
in  theory  or  practice,  to  repudiate  the  very  end  for  which  it  was  estab¬ 
lished.  If  it  is  not  a  visible  and  bi-iirht  church,  it  is  not  a  church  at 
all.  Set  on  an  hill  is  better  rendered  in  the  Ilhemisli  version,  situated  on 
a  mountain.  The  first  word  strictly  means  lying.^  and  the  last  word  is 
applied  to  the  highest  as  well  as  to  the  lowest  elevations,  which  is  not 
tlie  modern  usage  of  the  English  hill.  The  opinion  of  some  writers, 
that  our  Saviour  had  particular  allusion  to  the  lofty  situation  of  the 
city  Saphet,  then  perhaps  in  full  view,  is  refuted  by  the  fact  that  it 
was  not  yet  built.  It  is  moreover  perfectly  gratuitous,  and  most  im¬ 
probable,  that  all  or  any  of  our  Saviour’s  illustrations  of  divine  truth 
were  suggested,  as  it  were,  at  random,  by  fortuitous  and  unexpected 
sights  or  sounds.  It  is  enough  that  they  were  drawn  from  real  and 
flimiliar  life,  without  ascribing  to  them  an  impromptu  character,  which 
might  perhaps  do  credit  to  the  genius  of  an  uninspired  teacher,  but 
which  only  detracts  from  the  honour  of  omniscience. 

15.  ISTeither  do  men  light  a  candle,  and  put  it  under 
a  bushel,  but  on  a  candlestick  :  and  it  giveth  light  unto 
all  that  are  in  the  house. 

The  preceding  illustration  drawn  from  a  city  on  a  mountain,  by  its 
very  beauty  and  sublimity,  departs  from  the  domestic  character  of 
what  had  just  been  said  in  reference  to  salt.  From  this  momentary 
deviation  the  discourse  is  now  brought  back  by  the  addition  of  a  second 
illustration,  to  the  same  efiect  with  that  just  given,  but  derived  from 
rdinary  household  habits.  The  essential  meaning  still  is  that  an 
object,  which  exists  in  order  to  be  seen,  must  be  seen,  or  it  fails  of  its 


MATTHEW  5,15.16. 


123 


effect,  and  might  as  well  not  be  at  all.  The  illustration  here  is  from 
the  obvious  absurdity  of  lighting  a  candle  and  then  hiding  it  from 
view,  neither  connects  it  with  the  last  clause  of  v.  14,  as  another  neg¬ 
ative  proposition  of  the  same  kind  but  distinct  in  form.  As  if  he  had 
said,  ‘equally  unheard  of  is  it  in  domestic  life  to  light.’  &c.  Men\s 
here  put  indefinitely,  as  in  v.  11,  for  the  simple  pronoun  tJiey^  which 
is  continually  so  used  in  colloquial  English,  as  a  succedaneum  for  the 
French  on  and  the  German  man  (on  dit,  man  sagt,  they  say),  which 
last  is  identical  in  origin  wiih  men^  as  here  used  in  the  English 
Bibles.  Light^  the  Greek  verb  usually  rendered  hurn^  but  sometimes 
causative  in  meaning  (make  burn,  kindle).  Candle^  a  word  denoting 
any  movable  artificial  light,  whether  candle,  lamp,  or  lantern,  any  of 
which  terms  may  represent  it,  though  the  first  is  entitled  to  the  pref¬ 
erence  from  long  flimiliarity.  The  corresponding  Gi’eek  word  in  the 
next  clause  is  related  to  this,  as  candlestick  to  candle^  lanqj-siand  to 
lamp^  although  nothing  is  gained  by  the  substitution  of  the  latter. 
Put  (or  pjlace)^  not  on  any  one  occasion  but  habitually,  it  is  not  the 
custom  of  men  so  to  do.  The  hushel^  or  in  Greek  the  modius^  with  the 
definite  article  to  designate  the  measure  found  in  every  house  as  one 
of  its  utensils.  The  precise  capacit}^  of  that  here  mentioned  is  of  no 
importance.  That  it  really  came  nearer  to  our  peck  than  our  bushel^ 
can  have  no  effect  upon  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  which  would  be 
the  same  if  the  word  used  had  been  l)asket^  lox.  or  hed  (as  it  is  in 
Mark  4,  21).  The  point  of  compaiison  is  not  the  size  but  tlie  conceal¬ 
ing  power  of  the  subject,  so  that  the  dimensions  of  the  modius  are  of 
as  little  exegetical  importance  as  those  of  the  bed.  A  candlestick^  or 
more  exactly,  the  candlestick,  i.  e.  the  one  found  of  course  in  every 
house,  not  only  in  the  East  but  elsewhere.  And  (then,  in  that  case, 
w-hen  put  into  its  proper  place),  it  gireth  lights  a  single  word  in  Greek, 
the  theme  or  root  of  the  noun  lamp^  which  may  be  here  translated 
shines^  as  the  same  vei’b  is  in  v.  22,  and  17,  2  below,  and  several  times 
elsewhere.  Stripped  of  its  figurative  dress,  the  meaning  of  the  verse 
is,  that  as  Christ’s  disciples  are  to  be  a  source  or  channel  of  divine  and 
saving  knowledge  to  the  world,  they  must  not  endeavour  to  defeat  the 
very  end  of  their  existence  by  concealing  or  withholding  what  they 
have  received,  not  only  for  themselves  but  for  the  benefit  of  others. 

16.  Let  your  light  so  shine  before  men,  that  they 
may  see  your  good  works,  and  glorify  your  Father  which 
is  in  heaven. 

The  original  order  of  the  words,  disturbed  by  Tyndale,  has  been 
partially  preserved  in  the  llhemish  version  {so  let  your  light  s]nne\ 
and  still  more  perfectly  by  Wiclif,  although  scarcely  in  accordance 
with  our  idiom  {so  shine  your  light).  So  is  not  to  be  construed 
merely  with  what  follows  (so  a.s,  so  that),  but  with  w'hat  pre¬ 
cedes,  thus.^  likewise.  As  men  do  with  lamps  or  candles  in  their 
houses,  so  must  you  do  with  the  light  of  truth  in  this  dark  world, 


124 


MAT  T  H  E  5,  IG.  17. 

Your  light.,  in  the  tropical  or  moral  sense,  represented  in  the  context 
by  the  literal  material  light  of  lamps  or  candles.  ‘  So  let  the  saving 
knowledge  you  possess  be  spread  abroad  to  others  also.’  Before,  i.  e. 
before  their  faces,  not  behind  their  backs,  or  wholly  out  of  sight,  as 
if  a  lighted  candle  should  be  covered  with  a  peck  or  bushel  measure. 
The  men,  i.  e.  other  men,  or  more  specifically,  those  within  your  reach, 
or  under  3mur  immediate  influence.  The  last  clause  urges  a  new  motive 
for  so  doing  in  addition  to  that  drawn  from  the  very  nature  and 
design  both  of  material  and  moral  light.  That  it  was  light,  was 
enough  to  show  that  men  must  see  it  or  they  could  not  profit  by  it. 
But  a  higher  reason  for  the  same  thing  is  presented.  By  a  beautiful 
transition  we  are  led,  through  a  laudable  regard  to  our  own  credit, 
up  to  the  ultimate  and  most  coercive  principle  of  action.  That  they  may 
see  your  good  (fair,  beautiful,  fine)  loorhs  (or  actions).  This  undoubt¬ 
edly  implies  that  we  are  not  to  do  good,  as  a  general  rule,  by  stealth, 
but  with  a  view  to  being  seen  by  others  ;  and  that  in  this  sense  a 
regard  to  character  or  reputation  is  not  only  lawful,  but  incumbent 
upon  all  disciples.  Lest,  however,  they  should  rest  in  this  as  the 
supreme  end  to  be  aimed  at,  he  defines  this  end  in  the  closing  words  by 
adding,  and  may  glorify  your  Father  {the  one')  in  heaven,  literally,  in 
the  heavens  (see  above,  on  v.  3),  as  distinguished  from  all  earthly 
fathers  or  superiors  whatever.  The  term  Father  tenderly  suggests 
the  new  and  intimate  relation  which  was  to  exist  through  Christ  him¬ 
self,  between  his  followers,  and  that  God  who  without  his  intervention 
is  not  only  inaccessible  to  man  but  “  a  consuming  fire.”  (Heb.  12,  29. 
See  below,  on  6,  9.)  Glorify,  a  Greek  verb  derived  from  a  noun  wliich 
originall}^  means  opinion,  whence  the  verb  in  classical  Greek  usage 
means  to  think  or  to  be  of  opinion.  But  as  the  noun  acquired  the 
more  specific  sense  of  the  opinion  entertained  by  one  man  of  another, 
and  especially  a  favourable,  flattering  opinion,  admiration,  reputation, 
fame,  or  glory  ;  so  the  verb,  in  Hellenistic  usage,  means  to  promote  or 
propagate  this  glory.  When  applied  to  God,  as  it  usually  is  in  the  New 
Testament  (compare  6,  2  with  9,  8.  15,  31),  it  means  to  give  him  glory, 
in  the  only  intelligible  sense  of  that  expression,  not  to  make  him  glorious 
in  himself,  which  is  impossilde,  but  in  the  sight  of  creatures,  by 
acknowledging  and  praising  him  as  glorious.  Thus  the  Saviour  winds 
up  this  division  of  his  great  discourse,  by  leading  his  disciples  through 
the  homeliest  and  most  familiar  every-day  analogies  of  common  life,  to 
the  sublime  and  final  end  of  all  action  and  of  all  existence 


17.  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law-,  or 
the  prophets  :  I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  hut  to  fulfil. 

In  opposition  to  the  notion  entertained  by  some,  that  this  is  an 
abrupt  transition,  and  that  no  connection  can  be  traced  with  the  fore¬ 
going  context,  either  because  Christ  spoke  incoherently,  or  because 
the  words  were  never  uttered  in  this  order  ;  there  is  no  need  of  insist¬ 
ing  on  a  formal  logical  progression  in  the  thought,  as  some  have  done, 


125 


:M  A  T  T  H  E  W  5,  17. 

and  thereby  been  betrayed  into  a  forced  and  disingenuous  construction 
of  the  passage.  The  association  of  ideas,  if  there  is  one,  must  be  on 
the  surface,  not  concealed  beneath  it,  and  it  seems  to  be  afforded  by 
the  phrase  good  u'orlcs  in  the  pi  eceding  sentence.  Down  to  that  clause, 
the  allusion  seemed  to  be  to  knowledge  rather  than  to  practice,  and 
by  letting  their  light  shine  the  disciples  might  have  understood  exclu¬ 
sively  the  diligent  ditfusion  of  the  truth  in  their  possession.  This  is 
undoubtedly  the  primary  import  of  the  figure,  but  our  Saviour,  with 
consummate  wisdom,  guards  against  the  natural  proclivity  to  rest  in 
speculative  wisdom  or  divorce  it  from  its  natural  effect  upon  the  life 
and  conduct,  by  introducing,  as  a  necessary  part  of  the  illumination 
which  they  were  to  practise,  the  exhibition  of  a  luminous  example,  so 
that  men  may  see  your  good  worlcs  and  (by  them  be  led  to)  glorify 
your  Father  in  heaven.  This  reference  to  good  worlcs,  as  a  necessary 
means  of  glorifying  God,  in  the  new  as  well  as  in  the  old  economy, 
would  naturally  raise  a  question  as  to  their  mutual  relation,  and  par¬ 
ticularly  as  to  the  continued  force  of  the  Mosaic  law  under  the  reign 
of  the  Messiah.  Now  to  this  point,  we  have  reason  to  believe,  related 
one  of  the  most  prevalent  and  dangerous  delusions  of  the  day,  to  do 
away  with  which  was  a  main  design  of  the  discourse  before  us.  This 
was  the  idea,  natural  in  all  such  cases,  and  often  actually  reproduced 
in  revolutionary  times,  both  civil  and  religious,  that  the  new  regime 
would  bring  with  it,  not  merely  the  correction  of  abuses,  but  a  change 
of  moral  principles,  a  relaxation  of  the  claims  of  justice,  and  a  greater 
license  of  indulgence  in  things  hitherto  forbidden.  This  spirit  of  liber¬ 
tinism,  which  was  afterwards  revived  in  the  period  of  the  Eeforma- 
tion,  and  again  in  that  of  the  French  Revolution,  is  the  natural  spon¬ 
taneous  growth  of  man’s  aversion  to  restraint,  promoted  by  a  no  less 
natural  confounding  of  restraints  imposed  by  human  tyranny  with 
those  imposed  by  divine  authority.*  As  human  nature  is  the  same  in 
every  age  and  country,  it  is  not  surprising  that  this  Antinomian  delu¬ 
sion  should  have  mingled  with  the  Jewish  hopes  of  the  Messiah’s 
advent,  or  that  Christ  should  have  devoted  to  its  refutation  an  exten¬ 
sive  space  in  this  great  exposition  of  the  nature  of  his  kingdom,  begin¬ 
ning  with  the  verse  before  us.  Thinlc  not  implies  a  disposition  so  to 
think,  and  may  therefore  be  considered  an  implicit  confirmation  of  the 
previous  statement  as  to  the  existence  of  the  error  here  referred  to. 
That  I  came,  when  I  appeared  among  you  as ‘-a  teacher  come  from 
God.”  (John  3,  2.)  A  direct  allusion  to  his  Messianic  office  is  less 
probable  so  early  in  his  ministiy,  although  that  sense  would  neces¬ 
sarily  be  put  upon  his  words  by  his  disciples  at  a  later  period,  as  in 
other  cases  where  we  are  expressly  told  that  what  ho  said  was  not 
fully  understood  till  rendered  clear  to  them  by  subsequent  events.f 

*  An  instance  of  the  same  thing  may  be  seen  among  ourselves,  in  the  almost 
frantic  opposition  of  some  foreign  residents  to  the  pi'otection  of  the  Sabbath,  as 
an  imposition  perfectly  analogous  to  those  from  which  they  have  escaped  in 
Europe. 

t  Sec  for  instance  ,Tohn  2,  22,  “■  When  therefore  he  was  risen  from  the  dead, 
his  disciples  i-cmcmbeied  that  he  had  said  tins  unto  them,  and  they  believed  the 
Scripture  and  tlie  word  which  Jesus  had  said.” 


12G 


I\I  A  T  T II E  W  5,  17. 


Came  to  destroy^  a  combination  of  the  finite  and  infinitive  familiar  to 
our  idiom,  in  which  the  second  verb  defines  the  end  or  object  of  the 
first.  In  tl)is  connection,  the  whole  phrase  relates  to  the  design  of 
the  IMcssiah’s  advent,  and  by  parity  of  reasoning,  to  the  principles  or 
nature  of  his  kingdom.  Destroy^  so  rendered  also  elsewhere  in  this 
gospel  (see  below,  on  26,  Cl.  27,  40),  is  in  Greek  peculiarly  expressive, 
as  originally  signifying  dissolution  or  disintegration,  the  destruction  of 
a  whole  by  the  complete  separation  of  its  parts,  as  when  a  house  is 
taken  down  by  being  taken  to  pieces,  the  very  act  denoted  by  the  verb 
in  the  passage  just  cited.  In  the  same  sense,  but  with  a  figurative 
application,  Paul  employs  it  to  describe  the  dissolution  of  the  body 
(2  Cor.  5,  1),  and  of  a  system  of  belief  and  practice  (Gal.  2,  18),  which 
last  is  precisely  its  use  here.  To  destroy  the  laio  is  not  to  break  it,  in 
the  way  of  personal  transgression,  which  would  be  otherwise  expressed, 
as  it  is  elsewhere  (Rom.  3,  23.  25.  27),  but  to  abrogate  (or  as  Wiclif 
says,  undo)  it,  as  a  whole  and  as  a  system.  The  law  would  of  course 
be  understood  to  mean  the  law  of  Moses,  under  which  they  lived,  and 
from  the  restraints  of  which  the  class  here  addressed  were  longing  to 
be  free.  That  it  does  riot  mean  the  ceremonial  law,  as  such,  or  as 
distinguished  from  the  moral  law,  is  evident,  not  only  from  the  want 
of  an}^  such  distinction,  which  is  therefore  wholly  arbitrary  and  gra¬ 
tuitous,  but  also  from  the  words  expressly  added,  or  the  prophets^ 
which  may  cither  mean  the  prophets  in  the  strict  sense,  as  expounders 
of  the  law,  or  more  indefinitely,  all  the  inspired  writers  of  the  Old 
Testament,  by  whom,  and  not  exclusively  by  Moses,  the  law,  as  the 
expression  of  the  will  of  God,  had  been  revealed  to  Israel.  The  dis¬ 
junctive  {or)  is  not,  as  some  explain  it,  here  equivalent  to  and^  but 
has  its  proper  force,  expressing  an  alternative  negative,  ‘neither  in  the 
narrower  nor  in  the  wider  sense,  the  law  as  originally  given  by  Moses, 
or  as  afterwards  expounded  in  the  later  Scriptures.’  Not  content  with 
warning  them  against  this  error,  he  solemnly  propounds  the  corre¬ 
sponding  truth,  both  in  a  negative  and  positive  form.  I  am  not  come^ 
the  same  verb  that  occurs  in  the  first  clause  (r/A^or),  and  which  strictly 
signifies  I  came^  i.  e.  when  I  appeared  officially  among  you,  and  began 
my  public  ministry;  or  possibly  there  may  be  a  remoter  reference  to 
his  incarnation  and  nativity,  of  which  he  elsewhere  speaks  as  his  com¬ 
ing  forth  from  the  Father  (John  16,  28).  In  either  case  the  phrase 
describes  the  object  of  his  Messianic  Avork  and  mission,  Avhich  was  not 
to  destroy  (in  the  sense  before  explained)  hut  to  fulfil.  The  object 
of  the  verbs  is  sup)pressed,  not  only  because  it  is  so  easily  supplied 
from  the  preceding  clause,  but  because  the  proposition  here  is  a  more 
general  one.  He  did  not  come  to  abrogate  the  law  or  the  prophets ; 
for  the  end  and  design  of  his  whole  Avork  was  not  destructive  but 
completory.  Fufifi  from  its  restricted  use  in  English,  is  less  ambig¬ 
uous  than  the  Greek  verb,  Avhich  usually  means  to  fill  ovfill  up  (see 
aboA’c  on  1,  22.  2,  15.  17.  23.  3,  15.  4,  14),  either  in  a  literal  or  figurative 
sense.  Its  precise  sense  here  must  be  determined  by  the  obvious 
antithesis  or  contrast  to  destroy.  As  that  does  not  mean  simply  to 
transgress  or  violate,  so  this  cannot  simply  mean  to  heep  or  obey- 


MAT  T  II E  W  5,  17.  18. 


127 


And  as  that  means  to  abrogate  or  undo  the  whole  sj^stein,  this  must 
mean  the  opposite,  not  only  to  continue  its  existence,  but  in  some 
sense  to  perfect  or  complete  it.  This  fulfilling  of  the  law.  however, 
may  be  either  subjective  or  objective,  the  supplying  of  omissions  and 
defects  in  the  law  itself ;  or  the  supplying  of  omissions  and  defects  in 
its  observance  or  its  execution.  The  first  of  these  ideas  is  at  variance 
with  the  nature  of  the  law,  as  a  divine  revelation  and  economy,  as 
well  as  with  the  uniform  teaching  of  both  Testaments.*  Even  as  an 
expression  of  God’s  will  for  a  temporary  purpose,  it  cannot  be  called 
imperfect  or  defective ;  for  it  is  of  that  expression  that  the  Scriptures 
predicate  perfection.  To  complete  the  law,  then,  cannot  mean  to  make 
it  better,  but  to  cause  it  to  be  better  kept  and  carried  out,  which  is 
the  very  thing  required  by  the  connection,  as  our  Lord  is  combating 
the  false  idea,  that  the  law  would  be  relaxed  or  disregarded  in  the 
kingdom  of  the  Messiah. 


18.  For  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Till  heaven  and  eartn 
pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the 
law,  till  all  he  fulfilled. 

Not  only  was  the  mission  of  our  Lord  completory  and  not  de¬ 
structive  in  its  end  or  purpose,  but  the  law  itself,  as  the  expression 
of  God’s  will  which  is  immutable,  must  be  essentially  perpetual  and 
constant.  Tliis  proposition  is  co-ordinate  to  that  in  the  last  clause  of 
V.  17,  and  not  dependent  on  it ;  so  that  the  foi'  assigns  another  reason 
why  they  should  not  think  he  came  to  abrogate  the  law,  to  wit,  be¬ 
cause  it  was  not,  in  the  sense  which  they  attached  to  the  word  destroy, 
susceptible  of  abrogation.  This  is  not  simply  stated  in  didactic  form, 
but  solemnly  propounded  as  a  most  important  principle,  with  all  the 
authority  belonging  to  the  speaker  as  a  teacher  come  from  God. 
Amen,  here  translated  verily  (or  ti'uly),  is  a  Hebrew  adjective,  origin¬ 
ally  meaning  sui'e  or  certain,  but  employed  as  an  ejaculatory  particle 
of  assent  or  concurrence,  at  the  close  or  in  the  intervals  of  prayers, 
benedictions,  curses,  vows,  or  other  forms  of  a  religious  kind,  when 
uttered  by  one  or  more  persons  in  the  name  of  others.  (Num.  5,  22. 
Heut.  27,  15.  1  Kings  1,  36.  1  Chr.  16,  36.  Ps.  106,  48.  Jer.  28,  6. 
Matt.  6,  13.  1  Cor.  14,  16.  Rev.  5,  14.  22.  20.)  But  besides  these 
cases,  and  some  others  where  the  word  is  retained  without  translation, 
there  are  many  more  in  which  it  is  translated  verily,  and  stands  not 
at  the  end  but  the  beginning  of  a  sentence.  This  is  one  of  the  most 
marked  characteristics  of  our  Saviour’s  manner  which  have  been  pre¬ 
served  to  us,  especially  by  John,  who  always  writes  it  twice,  a  form 
not  found  in  any  of  the  other  gospels.  In  the  case  before  us,  as  in 
others,  it  invites  attention  to  the  following  words  as  uttered  on  divine 
authority,  and  therefore  truth  itself.  The  same  idea  is  often  expressed 

*  Compare  Ps.  19,  7  (the  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul) 
with  Rom.  7,  12  (the  law  is  holy  and  the  commandment  holy  and  just  and 
good). 


128 


M  A  T  T  H  E  ^Y  5,  18. 


in  the  Old  Testament  by  a  divine  oath.  I  say  unto  you  is  an  express¬ 
ive  formula,  too  often  overlooked  as  pleonastic,  but  containing  two 
emphatic  pronouns.  I,  the  Son  of  God,  and  yet  the  Son  of  man, 
declare  to  you,  my  hearers  and  disciples.  The  declaration  thus  im¬ 
pressively  announced  is,  that  the  law  shall  never  cease  to  be  authorita¬ 
tive  and  obligatory.  This  idea  is  expressed  by  a  comparison,  familiar 
to  the  st3de  of  the  Old  Testament,  with  the  frame  of  nature  or  (he 
constitution  of  the  universe,  a  standing  emblem  of  immutability.  The 
meaning  cannot  be  that  as  the  heavens  and  the  earth  shall  one  day  he 
destroyed,  so  the  law  shall  then  be  nullified,  but  not  till  then.  Such 
an  assurance,  even  if  it  could  be  naturally  thus  expressed,  would  be 
irrelevant  in  this  connection,  the  whole  drift  of  which  requires  an 
absolute  assertion  of  immutability.  The  changes  which  the  universe 
is  yet  to  undergo  are  either  left  entirely  out  of  view,  or  reckoned  as 
mere  changes  of  its  form  without  annihilation  of  its  substance,  and 
therefore  not  unfitting  it  to  be  the  emblem  of  unchanging  perpetuity. 
Pass^  or  more  exactly,  go  b}',  pass  away,  become  invisible,  and  by 
implication  cease  to  be.  Jot  or  tittle,  in  the  oldest  editions  of  King 
James’s  Bible  written  iote  and  title,  are  expressions  borrowed  from 
the  art  of  writing,  and  peculiarly  appropriate  in  speaking  of  a  written 
law,  not  even  the  minutest  point  of  which  should  fail  of  its  effect  or 
be  abolished  without  answering  its  purpose.  As  we  in  such  a  case 
might  say,  not  a  word,  syllable,  or  letter,  so  the  ancients  said  not  an 
iota,  the  smallest  Greek  letter,  corresponding  to  the  Hebrew  yod,  from 
which  it  also  takes  its  name.  The  other  word  (Kepoia),  translated 
tittle,  properly  denotes  a  little  horn,  but  is  applied  to  the  minute 
points  and  projections  by  which  similar  letters  are  distinguished. 
In  no  wise,  or  by  no  means,  not  at  all,  is  an  intensive  or  emphatic 
formula,  here  used  to  represent  the  double  negative  in  Greek  (ou 
which  instead  of  cancelling  enhances  the  negation.  Pass  (pass  away) 
from  the  law,  i.  e.  cease  to  be  a  part  of  it,  or  be  obliterated  from  it. 
This  is  a  natural  hyperbole,  which  every  reader  understands  at  once 
as  meaning  that  the  law  shall  abide  in  its  integrity  without  the  least 
deduction  from  its  actual  contents  and  substance  as  a  well-known 
systematic  W'hole.  That  this  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  strong  expres¬ 
sions,  is  apparent  from  what  follows,  until  all  he  fulflled  (or  done, 
come  to  pass,  or  happen).  Not  literally  every  point  and  stroke  of  the 
writing,  which  are  separately  insusceptible  of  such  fulfilment,  but  the 
whole  law  as  a  system,  without  anj’’  derogation  or  deduction  from  its 
absolute  completeness.  We  have  here  another  proof  that  to  destroy 
and  to  fulfil  in  the  preceding  verse  do  not  mean  to  obey  and  to  trans¬ 
gress  particular  precepts,  but  to  perpetuate  or  abrogate  the  law  con¬ 
sidered  as  a  whole.  Divested  of  its  peculiar  form,  and  intended  to 
arouse  attention  and  enforce  the  truth,  our  Saviour’s  declaration  is 
that  the  law,  from  which  they  hoped  to  be  delivered,  should  remain  in 
its  integrity  and  undiininished  force,  until  its  purpose  was  accomplish¬ 
ed.  This  last  phrase  seems  to  solve  the  question  how  these  strong 
expressions  could  be  predicated  of  the  ceremonial  law,  which  was  to 
be  and  was  abolished  by  Messiah’s  advent.  That  peculiar  system  was 


129 


M  A  T  T  PI  E  W  5,  18.  19. 

a  sensible  and  temporary  form  of  the  divine  law,  not  the  law  itself,  so 
that  its  abrogation  when  its  purpose  had  been  answered  was  a  part 
of  the  fulfilment  here  predicted,  not  a  deviation  from  it  or  a  contradic¬ 
tion  of  it.  It  must  be  also  observed,  in  explanation  of  this  point,  that 
Christ  is  evidently  rectifying  errors  in  regard  to  something  deeper  and 
of  more  intrinsic  moment  than  the  ceremonial  law.  He  is  refuting  the 
erroneous  and  most  dangerous  impression,  that  the  change  of  dispen¬ 
sations  was  a  change  not  onlj^  of  external  institutions  but  of  moral 
principles,  in  opposition  to  which  error  he  declares  that  these  can 
never  change. 

19.  'W  hosoever  therefore  shall  break  one  of  these  least 
commandments,  and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be 
called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  but  whoso¬ 
ever  shall  do,  and  teach  (them),  the  same  shall  be  called 
great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

This  is  a  practical  and  personal  improvement  of  the  principles  just 
laidxlown,  which  might  otherwise  have  been  con^dercd  merely  specu¬ 
lative,  or  at  least  without  immediate  bearing  on  the  characters  and 
lives  of  individuals.  Our  Saviour  thus  far  has  been  speaking  of  the 
law  as  a  whole  or  as  a  system,  and  of  his  own  relation  to  it  as  an 
abrogater  or  fulfiller.  But  the  immutability  of  God’s  law  could  not 
be  a  matter  of  indifference  to  those  who  heard  him,  and  he  now  applies 
it  in  the  most  explicit  manner.  Therefore^  since  the  law  can  never 
lose  its  binding  force.  Wliosoe'cer  (or  in  modern  phrase,  whoever)^ 
without  any  personal  distinction  or  exception.  Shall  hreah  is  in 
Greek  a  more  contingent  phrase  (o?  (av  Xvati),  whoever  may  (at  any 
time),  &c.  Ureal'.,  the  simple  verb,  of  which  a  compound  occurs  twice 
in  V.  17,  where  it  is  rendered  by  destroy.  The  essential  idea  is  still 
that  of  loosening  and  dissolving,  but  without  the  preposition  {dowri)., 
suggesting  the  idea  of  a  structure  taken  down  or  pulled  to  pieces. 
We  are  not  therefore  to  identify  the  two  verbs,  and  make  that  here 
used  mean  likewise  to  annul  or  abrogate  the  system.  This  is  also 
foi'bidden  by  the  express  mention  of  a  single  precept  as  the  thing  dis¬ 
solved,  and  not  of  the  whole  law  or  congeries  of  precepts,  as  in  v,  17. 
The  only  dissolution  that  can  be  aflirmed  of  one  such  precept  is  its 
violation  by  the  individual,  so  that  the  term,  hreal'.,  used  in  all  the 
English  versions,  is  correct,  although  the  same  word  would  be  incor¬ 
rect  in  rendering  the  compound  verb  before  employed.  We  are  not 
to  overlook  the  exact  use  of  precejits  or  commandments.,  as  distinguish¬ 
ed  from  the  whole  law.  Least,  not  in  compass  or  external  form,  which 
sense  has  been  applied  by  some  to  the  Decalogue  or  Ten  Command¬ 
ments,  as  the  summary  or  basis  of  the  whole  law,  an  idea  just  the 
opposite  of  that  conveyed  to  every  unsophisticated  reader,  who  can 
only  understand  by  least  commandments  those  of  least  importance 
either  really  or  in  the  estiTnation  of  mankind.  But  however  little  in 
itself  or  in  proportion  to  the  whole  law,  if  it  really  form  part  of  it,  the 
6-::» 


130 


MATTHEW  5,19.20. 

obligation  to  obey  it  is  complete,  and  its  wilful  violation  is  a  virtual 
violation  of  the  whole,  according  to  the  apostolic  dictum,  that  he  who 
offends  in  one  point  is  guilty  of  all  (Jas.  2,  10).  And  teacJi  men  so^ 
by  precept  or  example  leading  others  into  the  same  false  depreciation 
of  the  law,  or  even  of  what  seem  to  be  its  least  important  precepts,  as 
no  longer  binding  in  the  kingdom  of  Messiah.  That  this  last  is  the 
idea  necessarily  implied  though  not  expressed,  is  clear  from  the  form 
of  the  penalty  denounced,  which  is  not  that  he  shall  perish  or  be  cast 
forth  into  outer  darkness,  but  that  he  shall  be  called  (i.  e.  recognized, 
described  as  being,  see  above,  on  v.  9)  least  in  the  hingdom  of  heaven^ 
i.  e.  under  the  new  dispensation  or  the  reign  of  the  Messiah  (sec  above, 
on  V.  3).  The  reference  is  therefore  not  to  soul-destroying  error  or  to 
absolute  rejection  of  the  truth,  but  to  theoretical  and  practical  offences 
which  might  be  committed  by  those  waiting  for  the  kingdom,  or 
admitted  to  it.  Such  an  offender  shall  be  justly  designated  leasts  not 
the  leash  in  comparison  with  every  other,  but  one  of  the  least,  belong¬ 
ing  to  the  lowest  class  of  those  who  are  in  any  sense  the  subjects  of 
IMessiah’s  reign.  This  form  of  expression  would  be  wholly  unaccount¬ 
able  and  unintelligible  if  we  did  not  know  from  the  preceding  context, 
that  our  Lord  is  combating  erroneous  view's  upon  the  part  of  some -who 
W'ere  impatiently  expecting  the  Messiah  and  a  simultaneous  relaxation 
or  entire  abrogation  of  the  law,  as  the  rule  of  human  duty.  Such  are 
here  admonished  that  by  the  slighting  even  the  minutest  precept  of 
the  lawg  they  would  certainly  degrade  themselves  to  the  low'est  rank 
in  that  kingdom  where  they  hoped  to  be  pre-eminent.  Their  admis¬ 
sion  to  it  is  assumed  or  presupposed,  the  alternative  of  salvation  or 
jjerdition  being  not  at  all  in  question.  If  it  had  been,  our  Lord  would 
not  have  represented  them  as  least  in  the  kingdom,  but  as  utterly  shut 
out  of  it.  The  last  clause  is  the  converse  of  the  one  before  it,  addins: 
emphasis  and  clearness  to  the  solemn  affirmation.  Greah  i.  e.  one  of 
a  superior  rank,  corresponding  to  the  indefinite  superlative  before 
used. 

20.  For  I  say  unto  you,  That  except  your  righteous¬ 
ness  shall  exceed  (the  righteousness)  of  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  case  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven. 

The  discourse  now  takes  a  wide  step  in  advance,  and  enters  on  a 
new'  and  spacious  field,  but  by  a  natural  and  obvious  transition  from 
the  previous  context.  Thus  far  the  Saviour  had  been  speaking  of  the 
law  and  of  its  precepts,  as  they  were  in  themselves,  wdthout  any 
reference  to  the  form  under  which  his  hearers  w^ere  familiar  wdth  them, 
and  on  which  their  view^s  of  the  divine  law  must  be  founded.  This 
peculiar  form  had  been  imparted  to  the  law  by  the  traditional  accre¬ 
tions  and  the  superstitious  practice  of  the  Pharisees,  the  great  prevail¬ 
ing  sect  or  party  (see  above,  on  3,  7),  and  the  official  or  professional 
instructions  of  the  Scribes,  the  leaders  of  that  party  and  the  spiritual 


MATTHEW  5,20. 


131 


guides  of  the  people  (see  above,  on  2,  4).  They  were  ostensibly  the 
strictest  moralists,  and  much  of  the  intolerable  burden  under  which 
the  people  groaned,  arose  from  their  unauthorized  additions  to  the 
law  which  their  followers  confounded  with  the  law  itself.  These 
naturally  looked  upon  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  as  too  good, 
“righteous  overmuch”  (Ecc.  7,  10),  and  hoped  fora  new  state 
of  things,  in  which  this  irksome  and  excessive  righteousness  would  be 
dispensed  with.  But  our  Lord  here  warns  them  that  instead  of  hav¬ 
ing  less  they  must  have  more  of  this  conformity  to  right  and  to  the 
will  of  God.  than  any  of  their  spiritual  guides,  and  that  as  a  con¬ 
dition  not  only  of  pre-eminence  but  even  of  admission  to  the  kingdom. 
Here  is  the  point  of  contact  or  connection  with  the  previous  context. 
He  had  told  them  who  should  be  called  least  and  great  in  the  Messi¬ 
ah’s  kingdom.  He  now  tells  them  who  should  be  admitted  to  it  or 
excluded  from  it.  That  the  violator  even  of  the  least  divine  command 
should  take  a  low  place  in  the  kingdom,  was  sufficiently  alarming  to 
these  Antinomian  expectants  of  Messiah’s  advent.  But  immeas¬ 
urably  more  so  was  the  declaration  that  instead  of  being  freed 
from  the  intolerable  task  of  trying  to  be  righteous,  they  must  be  more 
righteous  than  the  very  Scribes  and  Pharisees  themselves,  or  forfeit 
all  participation  in  the  blessings  of  the  coming  change.  As  if  a  Popish 
devotee  should  now  be  told  that  instead  of  looking  to  the  supereroga¬ 
tory  merits  of  his  holiest  superiors  to  eke  out  his  own  defects,  he 
must  surpass  them  all  in  holiness  himself.  The  form  of  expression  is 
intentionally  paradoxical,  requiring  explanation  of  the  terms  before  it 
could  be  fully  or  correctly  understood.  The  prima  facie  meaning 
seemed  to  be,  that  they  must  imitate  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  and 
go  beyond  them  in  the  same  direction,  or  they  could  not  be  admitted 
to  the  kingdom.  The  meaning,  as  afterwards  explained,  was  that  the 
Pharisees  and  Scribes,  instead  of  having  too  much,  had  too  little,  nay, 
had  nothing,  of  the  quality  required,  so  that  instead  of  trying  to  be 
like  them,  they  must  seek  in  this  respect  to  be  as  different  as  possible. 
For  connects  this  sentence  with  the  declarations  in  the  three  preced¬ 
ing  verses.  I  say  unto  you^  although  without  the  rerily  of  v.  18, 
gives  solemnity  and  form  to  the  expression.  Righteousness  is  not  to 
be  taken  in  any  technical  or  abstruse  sense,  but  as  simply  meaning 
rectitude,  conformity  to  some  acknowledged  standard,  which  with  all 
Jews  was  the  real  or  supposed  will  of  God.  There  is  no  question 
here  as  to  the  method  of  salvation,  or  the  Christian  doctrine  of  justifi¬ 
cation,  but  simply  as  to  a  participation  in  the  reign  of  the  Messiah. 
Shall  exceed,  the  same  expression  as  v.  19,  which  might  be  rendered 
more  exact  by  omitting  the  auxiliary  verb.  Tyndale’s  version  {exceed),, 
retained  by  all  the  Protestant  translators,  is  inferior  in  strength  not 
only  to  the  Greek  but  to  the  Vulgate  and  its  copyists  in  English 
(Wiclif,  he  more  plenteous  than.  Rheims,  abound  more  than).  Their 
righteousness  must  be  abundant  absolutely,  and  also  in  comparison 
with  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  In  no  case,  the  same  Greek  form 
{ov  prj)  that  occurs  in  v.  18,  and  is  there  translated  in  no  wise. 


132 


MATTHEW  5,21. 


21.  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  by  them  of 
old  time,  Thou  shalt  not  kill  ;  and  whosoever  shall  kill 
shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judgment. 

Having  said  in  general,  that  the  customary  or  prevailing  righteous¬ 
ness,  exemplified  and  sanctioned  by  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  was 
insufficient  to  secure  admission  into  the  kingdom  of  Messiah,  our  Lord 
proceeds  to  show  this  in  detail,  by  contrasting  the  Pharisaic  doctrine 
as  to  several  most  familiar  sins,  with  his  own  requisitions  in  regard  to 
the  same  matters,  the  result  of  the  comparison  in  each  case  being, 
that  the  standard  of  morality  in  his  church  or  kingdom  w’ould  be 
vastly  higher  than  among  the  strictest  Jewish  moralists  of  that  day, 
so  that  no  man  need  resort  to  him  in  the  hope  of  greater  license  or 
indulgence  as  to  moral  duties.  This  important  head  of  the  discourse 
extending  to  the  close  of  the  fifth  chapter,  is  subdivided  by  the  differ¬ 
ent  sins,  which  are  successively  brought  into  view,  as  differently  treat¬ 
ed  by  the  Pharisaic  and  the  Christian  ethics.  These  are  murder  (vs. 
21-26).  adultery  (vs.  27-30),  unauthorized  divorce  (vs.  31.  32),  unlaw¬ 
ful  oaths  (vs.  33-37),  revenge  (38-42),  hatred  (vs.  43-48).  Common 
to  all  these  subdivisions  is  the  general  idea  running  through  them, 
that  the  sins  enumerated  would  be  still  more  strictly  censured  and 
forbidden  in  the  new  than  in  the  old  theocracy.  There  is  also  a 
general  similarity  of  form,  without  punctilious  and  unnecessary  same¬ 
ness,  the  method  being  to  present  first  the  Jewish  theory  and  practice 
as  to  each  particular,  and  then  the  Christian  in  emphatic  contrast. 
Some  of  the  formulas,  employed  alike  in  every  case,  will  of  course 
need  only  to  be  once  explained,  to  wit,  when  the}^  first  occur,  leaving 
merely  what  is  new  or  peculiar  to  be  subsequently  noticed.  Ye  hate 
heard^  not  the  perfect  but  the  aorist  {r]Kovaare),  which,  according  to 
the  theory  and  strict  rule  of  Greek  syntax,  means  ye  heard  (or  did 
hear)  at  a  given  time,  but  is  often  employed,  even  in  the  classics,  and 
still  more  in  Hellenistic  usage,  to  denote  an  act  repeated  or  continued 
to  the  present  time,  especially  in  verbs  which  have  no  perfect  tense  in 
common  use.  The  idea  here  suggested  evidently  is,  that  they  had 
often  or  habitually  heard  it,  and  not  merely’-  once  for  all,  on  some  par¬ 
ticular  occasion.  The  reference,  which  might  be  to  mere  minop  or 
colloquial  information,  is  determined  by  the  context  to  the  hearing  of 
official  or  professional  instruction.  They  had  often  heard  it  from  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees,  already  mentioned  as  their  standards  and  ex¬ 
emplars  of  true  righteousness  or  goodness  ;  what  follows,  therefore,  is 
the  customary  representation,  whether  true  or  false,  of  these  acknowl¬ 
edged  leaders.  It  was  said  (or  sjwTcen)^  in  the  way  of  a  command,  as 
appears  from  the  words  quoted.  That  it  was  so  said,  is  not  here 
affirmed' directly  either  by  our  Lord  or  the  evangelist,  but  given  as  an 
affirmation  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  familiar  to  the  hearers  upon 
this  occasion.  Them  of  old  time^  an  unnecessary  circumlocution  repre¬ 
senting  two  Greek  words  which  simply  mean  the  ancients,  here  refer¬ 
ring  to  the  fathers  of  the  nation,  and  especially  to  that  generaiion 
which  received  the  law  through  IMoses.  The  original  expression 


133 


MATTHEW  5,21. 

never  denotes  personal  age  (Acts  21,  16  being  only  an  apparent  excep¬ 
tion),  much  less  official  dignity  or  eldership,  but  always  a  relation  to 
some  former  period  or  previous  state  of  things;  as  the  ancient  pro- 
phets,  i.  e.  those  of  the  Old  Testament  (Luke  9,  8.  19) ;  the  old  world^ 
namely,  that  before  the  flood  (2  Pet.  2,  5) ;  the  old  {things)^  the  state 
of  man  before  conversion  (2  Cor,  5,  17)  ;  the  old  (or  ancient)  serpent, 
i.  e.  the  same  that  figures  in  primeval  history  (Rev.  12,  9.  20,  2) ;  to 
which  may  be  added  the  adverbial  phrase,  from  ancient  days,  or 
generations  (Acts  15,  7.  21).  This  determinate  usage  is  sufficient  by 
itself  to  condemn  the  construction  put  upon  the  clause  before  us  in 
the  text  of  our  translation  {by  them  of  old  time),  and  to  recommend 
that  of  the,  older  English  versions  {to  them),  now  omitted  or  found 
only  in  the  margin.  For  by  what  ancients  could  this  bo  said  to  have 
been  uttered  ?  The  Scribes  would  never  have  attributed  the  precept 
to  the  whole  body  of  the  people,  or  applied  the  term  ancients  either 
to  Moses  or  to  God  himself;  while  its  application  to  contemporary 
elders  is  not  only  contrary  to  usage,  but  involves  the  incongruity  of 
making  these  elders  cite  themselves.  ‘  Ye  have  heard  (from  the 
elders)  that  it  has  been  said  by  the  elders.’  But  apart  from  these 
considerations,  this  construction  is  precluded  by  the  fact,  that  in  every 
other  case  where  the  same  passive  form  is  followed  by  the  dative,  that 
case  denotes  not  the  speaker  but  the  hearer.  Rom.  9,  12,  it  was  said 
^mto  her  (ipprj'iri  dvrfj) — ib.  V.  26 — it  was  said  unto  them  (eppr^'irj 
avTois) — Gal.  3,  16 — to  Abraham  were  spoken  the  promises — Rev.  6, 
11.  it  was  said  unto  them — Rev.  9,  4 — it  was  commanded  them,  liter¬ 
ally,  said  unto  them.  Acbording  to  this  usage,  which  is  uniform  and 
constant,  the  words  now  before  us  can  only  mean,  it  was  said  to  the 
ancients,  i.  e.  to  the  generation  which  received  the  law  (Acts  7,  53). 
This  was  probably  a  formula  in  common  use  among. the  Scribes  and 
rabbles  when  they  made  a  quotation  from  the  law  of  Moses.  Thou 
shall  not  MU,  the  sixth  commandment,  here  recorded  in  the  words  of 
the  Septuagint  version  (Ex.  20,  13).  And  or  hut  (5e)  introduces 
something  added  to  the  simple  precept  in  the  way  of  comment  or 
•interpretation,  either  by  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  themselves,  or  a 
part  of  the  original  legislation  as  reported  by  them.  In  the  former 
case  the  phrase,  it  was  said  unto  the  ancients,  extends  only  to  the  pi'e- 
cept  as  it  stands  in  the  decalogue.  ‘  It  was  said  of  old,  thou  shalt  not 
kill,  and  we  say  in  accordance  with  it,  he  that  kills,  etc.’  On  the 
other  supposition,  both  these  clauses  are  described  as  part  of  the 
original  command,  preserved  in  the  Oral  law  or  “  tradition  of  the 
elders”  (see  below,  on  15,  2).  The  latter  is  in  perfect  keeping  with 
the  doctrine  and  the  practice  of  the  Pharisees,  but  not  the  necessary 
meaning  of  the  language,  nor  perhaps  the  most  obvious  in  this  connec¬ 
tion.  As  to  the  wmrds  themselves,  thus  added  to  the  sixth  command¬ 
ment,  whether  by  tradition  of  the  elders  or  by  later  Pharisaic  com¬ 
ment,  they  are  either  an  unmeaning  paraphrase,  in  which  case  they 
would  hardly  have  been  quoted,  or  an  exposition  of  the  sense  in  which 
the  precept  was  to  be  applied.  The  only  way  in  which  the  hitter 
supposition  can  be  justified  is  by  laying  stress  upon  the  verb  in  its 


134 


MATTHEW  5,21.22. 

precise  sense,  which  is  that  of  murder  or  malicious  homicide,  ns  in  the 
Hebrew  of  the  sixth  commandment.  The  whole  may  then  be  para¬ 
phrased  as  follows.  ‘You  have  (often)  heard  (it  said  by  the  Scribes 
and  leading  Pharisees),  that  our  fathers  were  commanded  not  to 
murder,  and  that  consequently  only  he  who  murders  (in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  term)  is  liable  to  be  condemned  and  punished  under  this 
commandment.’  This  agrees  not  only  with  the  obvious  import  of  the 
terms  and  with  the  previous  connection,  but  presents  exactly  such  a 
limitation  of  the  precept  as  our  Lord  appears  to  combat  in  the  next 
verse.  Shall  hill  is  too  categorical  a  form,  like  those  in  vs.  19.  20, 
and  might  be  translated  more  exactly  may  hill,  or  still  better  by  the 
simple  present  {kills)  which  is  often  used  contingent!}^  in  modern 
English,  and  is  so  used  by  our  own  translators  in  the  next  verse  {who¬ 
soever  is  angry),  although  not  to  represent  the  same  original  construc¬ 
tion.  Shall  he,  on  the  other  hand,  exactly  represents  the  next  verb, 
which  is  future  (eo-rai).  Li  danger  of,  obnoxious,  liable,  exposed  to, 
the  original  expression  primarily  signifying  held  in.  and  then  hound 
hy,  Vvdth  particular  reference  in  usage  to  judicial  or  forensic  obligation. 
There  is  no  need  of  giving  to  the  judgment  here  its  highest  sense  of 
final  and  eternal  condemnation,  or  its  lowest  of  a  local  secular  tri¬ 
bunal.  Far  more  obvious  and  suited  to  the  context  is  the  usual  and 
wide  sense  of  Judicial  process,  without  specification  of  the  time,  place, 
or  form,  in  which  it  is  conducted.  ‘  Whoever  murders  (and  no  other) 
shall  be  liable  to  trial  and  conviction  in  due  course  of  law.’ 

22.  But  I  say  unto  you,  That  whosoever  is  angry 
with  his  brother  without  a  cause  shall  be  in  danger  of  the 
judgment :  and  whosoever  shall  say  to  his  brother,  Eaca, 
shall  he  in  danger  of  the  council  :  hut  whosoever  shall 
say,  Thou  fool,  shall  he  in  danger  of  hell-fire. 

Having  stated  the  traditional  or  Pharisaic  gloss  upon  the  sixth 
commandment,  which  restricted  it  to  actual  malicious  homicide,  our 
Lord  now  gives  his  own  far  wider  and  more  stringent  exposition  of  the 
same  law,  reaching  beyond  the  overt  act  to  the  malignant  dispositions 
out  of  which  it  springs.  But  1  say  unto  you,  in  opposition  not  to  the 
Mosaic  precept,  but  to  this  unauthorized  confinement  of  its  prohibi¬ 
tions  to  the  ultimate  result  of  murderous  affections.  Whosoever  is 
angry,  or  retaining  the  peculiar  form  of  the  original,  every  {one) 
angered  (or  enraged).  The  qualifying  adverb  {Skt])  usually  means  in 
the  New  Testament  in  vain,  i.  e.  without  effect,  to  no  purpose  (Rom. 
13,  4.  1  Cor,  15,  2.  Gal.  3,  4.  4,  11)  ;  but  in  one  other  place  at  least 

(Col.  2,  18),  it  has  the  sense  in  which  Polybius  and  Xenophon  employ 
it,  to  wit,  idly,  inconsiderately,  causelessly,  unreasonably.  The  Vul¬ 
gate  and  its  followers  omit  it  here  entirely,  in  which  they  are  sustain¬ 
ed  by  the  latest  critics,  who  suppose  it  to  have  been  introduced  by 
certain  copyists,  in  order  to  avoid  an  absolute  condemnation  of  all 
anger,  which  is  inconsistent  both  with  apostolic  precept  (Eph.  4,  2C)  and 


135 


MATTHEW  5,22. 

with  Christ’s  example  (Mark  3,  5).  It  would  seem  to  follow,  there¬ 
fore.  that  the  limitation  is  implied  if  not  expressed,  which  makes  the 
textual  variation  exegetically  unimportant.  The  truth,  however,  is 
that  the  question  here  is  not  between  a  groundless  and  a  reasonable 
anger,  but  between  all  anger,  as  an  inward  affection  of  the  mind,  and 
its  outward  manifestation  in  unlawful  acts  of  violence.  As  if  be  had 
said,  men  are  to  be  judged,  not  only  by  their  murderous  acts,  but  by 
their  murderous  feelings.  This  is  dii-ectly  stated  in  the  first  clause, 
and  then  indirectly  in  the  others,  where  instead  of  anger  itself,  we 
have  natural  and  usual  expressions  of  it  in  abusive  and  contemptuous 
language.  This  essential  import  of  the  terms  is  not  affected  by  the 
specific  sense  attached  to  each,  although  the  obvious  and  common 
explanations  are  no  doubt  the  best.  Raclm  (which  AViclif  renders  fij)  is 
probably  an  Aramaic  w#rd  (p‘'“i  or  itptn),  meaning  vain,  empty, 
which  occurs  in  the  later  Jewish  books  as  an  expression  of  contempt. 
Fool  is  used  for  the  same  purpose  in  all  languages,  evincing  pride  of 
intellect  to  be  an  universal  passion.  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of 
attaching  to  the  term  the  peculiar  sense  ascribed  to  correspond¬ 
ing  Hebrew  words,  in  which  wickedness  and  folly  seem  to  be  iden¬ 
tified.  The  whole  question  as  to  the  specific  import  of  these  terms 
is  without  exegetical  importance,  as  the  meaning  meant  to  be  convey¬ 
ed  is  simply,  that  the  sixth  commandment,  as  interpreted  by  Christ, 
forbids,  not  only  the  extreme  act  of  murder,  but  the  anger  which 
impels  to  it,  and  the  words  by  which  that  anger  is  betrayed,  whatever 
be  their  primary  or  proper  meaning.  The  disposition  to  insist  upon 
that  meaning  is  connected  with  an  ancient  and  an  almost  universal 
notion  of  a  climax  in  this  sentence,  which  has  led  to  many  forced 
constructions,  and  obscured  if  not  perverted  its  whole  meaning.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  this  usual  assumption,  we  have  here  three  gradations 
of  unauthorized  and  sinful  anger,  with  as  many  measures  or 
degrees  of  punishment  assigned  to  them  respectively.  The  first 
degree  of  sin  is  simple  anger  (or  according  to  the  common  text,  un¬ 
reasonable,  groundless  anger)  not  expressed  at  all ;  the  second  the  ex¬ 
pression  of  such  anger  by  the  use  of  the  word  raca ;  and  the  third, 
by  the  use  of  the  word  fool.  The  first  or  lowest  form  of  punishment, 
attached  to  these  offences,  is  the  judgment^  which  is  commonly  ex¬ 
plained  to  mean  the  local  or  inferior  tribunal  which  existed 
in  all  Jewish  towns,  composed  of  three  or  seven  judges.  The 
next  is  the  council^  or  synedrion,  the  Greek  term  commonly 
applied  to  the  supreme  court  or  national  tribunal  of  the  Jews 
(see  below,  on  10. 17.  2G.  59).  The  third  is  the  fire  of  hell^  or 
more  exactly,  the  gelienna  of  fire,  a  later  Jewish  name  for  the  place 
of  future  torment,  being  really  a  Greek  word  made  up  of  two  Hebrew 
ones,  originally  meaning  the  Valley  of  Ilinnom.  As  a  local  designa¬ 
tion,  it  described  the  valley  on  the  south  side  of  Jerusaleni,  famous  of 
old  as  a  favourite  place  of  idolatrous  worship,  and  especially  of  the 
horrid  service  paid  to  Moloch  by  causing  children  to  pass  through  the 
fire  (Lev.  18,21.  20,2.  2  Kings  23,  10.  2  Chr.  33,  0.  Jcr.  19,  2.  32, 
35).  Hence  in  times  of  reformation,  and  especially  under  Josiah,  the 


136 


MATTHEW  5,22. 


last  good  king  of  Judah,  this  valley  was  defiled,  probably  by  being 
made  a  place  of  deposit  for  the  refuse  and  offal  of  the  city  (2  Kings  23, 
10).  It  is  often  added  that  to  consume  this  refuse  fires  were  kept 
perpetually  burning  ;  but  there  is  no  sufficient  evidence  of  this  fact, 
and  the  latest  writers  suppose  the  sacrificial  fires  of  Moloch  to  have 
given  rise  to  the  peculiar  usage  of  the  Gehenna^  to  denote  the  place  of 
future  torment,  or  what  in  modern  English  is  called  hell.  This  view 
of  the  passage,  though  entitled  to  respect  from  its  antiquity  and  gen¬ 
eral  reception,  is  unquestionablj’'  open  to  some  serious  objections.  In 
the  first  place,  it  assumes  a  gradation  in  the  sin  condemned,  which  is 
not  readily  suggested  by  the  terms  employed.  Interpreters  have 
found  it  so  impossible  to  show  the  greater  guilt  of  calling  a  man  fool 
than  or  of  saying  either  than  of  cherishing  a  silent  but  malignant 
anger,  that  they  have  been  forced  to  put  th#  most  unnatural  construc¬ 
tions  on  these  words,  without  effect,  because  the  difficulty  still  re¬ 
mains  essentially  the  same,  whatever  be  their  meaning.  In  the  next 
place,  there  is  an  offensive  incongruity  in  coupling  two  degrees  of 
Jewish  criminal  proceedings  with  eternal  torments  as  the  third 
degree  of  the  same  scale.  However  palliated  or  disguised,  the  transi¬ 
tion  here  is  felt  to  be  a  salto  mortale.  It  is  really  an  indirect  acknowl¬ 
edgment  of  this,  that  some  propose  to  make  the  judgment  and  the 
council.^  although  properly  denoting  human  courts,  mere  figures  for 
inferior  degrees  of  what  is  afterwards  called  hell-fre.  How  gratuitous 
and  arbitrary  this  is,  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact,  that  others  just 
reverse  the  process,  and  make  hell-fire  a  strong.  Oriental  figure  for 
the  worst  or  highest  form  of  punishment  in  this  world.  Feeling  the 
difficulties  which  attend  the  supposition  of  a  climax,  yet  unwilling  to  re¬ 
nounce  it,  some  have  recently  proposed  to  substitute  an  anti  climax  by 
reversing  the  gradation  both  of  sin  and  punishment,  or,  what  may  be 
regarded  as  the  furthest  possible  extreme  in  this  direction,  to  assume  a 
climax  in  the  one  case  and  an  anti-climax  in  the  other.  Such  diversities 
of  judgment  and  extravagant  inventions  on  the  part  of  wise  and 
learned  men  imply  an  error  in  the  principle  or  basis  of  the  exposition, 
which  can  only  be  rectified  in  this  case  by  discarding  the  idea  of  a 
cliniax  altogether,  and  explaining  the  three  clauses  as  substantially 
equivalent  though  formally  dissimilar  expressions  of  the  same  idea, 
namely,  that  the  law  of  God  forbids  not  only  murder  but  malignant 
anger  and  its  oral  manifestations.  ‘  So  far  is  this  commandment 
from  relating  only  to  the  act  of  murder,  that  it  makes  internal  anger 
an  offence  deserving  punishment.  Yes,  even  such  a  word  as  raca,  if 
expressive  of  an  inward  spite,  may  be  a  crime,  obnoxious  to  the  highest 
censures;  and  the  use  of  the  word  fool  may  spring  from  such  a  state 
of  mind,  that  he  who  utters  it  may  be  condemned  to  endless  torments.’ 
Retaining  this  as  the  essential  meaning,  there  is  some  room  for  latitude 
of  judgment  as  to  the  particular  expressions.  It  is  even  admissible, 
though  not  so  natural,  to  understand  the  judgment  and  the  council 
as  denoting  human  censures,  while  the  fire  of  hell  denotes  the  wrath 
of  God,  provided  these  unequal  sanctions  be  connected,  not  with  dif¬ 
ferent  degrees  of  sin,  but  with  the  same,  as  making  men  obnoxious 


MATTHEW  5,22.23.24. 


137 


both  to  present  and  to  future,  both  to  human  and  divine  retribution^:. 
Into  Jiell-Jire^  i.  e.  liable  to  be  thrown  into  it.  The  lesson  taught 
then  as  to  murder  is,  that  the  lav/  against  it  would  be  far  more  rigidly 
interpreted  and  executed  under  the  Messiah’s  reign  than  under  the 
jMosaic  law,  as  expounded  and  enlbrced  by  the  contemporary  Scribes 
and  Pharisees. 

23.  Therefore,  if  thou  bring  thy  gift  to  the  altar,  and 
there  rememberest  that  thy»  brother  hath  aught  against 
thee  ; 

The  next  four  verses  (23-26)  contain  a  practical  improvement  of 
the  view  just  taken  of  the  sixth  commandment,  or  the  law  of  murder, 
rendered  still  more  pointed  and  direct  by  the  use  of  the  second  person 
singular,  as  if  addressing  some  one  individual  among  those  present. 
If  the  law  extended  in  its  prohibitions  to  internal  feelings  and  ap¬ 
parently  unmeaning  words,  the  mutual  alienations  of  men  ceased  to 
be  a  matter  of  indifference,  and  demanded  speedy  reconciliation.  This 
is  first  expressed  (23.  24)  by  making  such  an  act  obligatory  even  in 
comparison  with  external  duties  of  religion,  as  well  as  a  prerequisite 
to  their  acceptance.  Therefore^  since  the  law  of  God  takes  cognizance 
of  angry  and  revengeful  feelings  no  less  than  of  murderous  acts.  The 
word  translated  hriiig  may  either  have  its  usual  and  general  sense,  or 
be  technically  used  to  denote  the  act  of  presentation  (corresponding  to 
the  Hebrew  ::''"ipn).  In  the  latter  case  the  sense  is  stronger,  as  the 

worshipper  is  then  supposed  to  be  not  merely  drawing  near  but  ac¬ 
tually  at  the  altar  and  engaged  in  the  first  act  of  oblation.  And  there 
rememljerest^  after  thy  arrival  at  the  altar,  which  implies  that  it  had 
not  occurred  to  him  before.  Thy  hrother.  not  thy  neighbour  rnerehq 
but  some  still  more  near  and  intimate  connectidn  .  Hath  aught  (any 
thing)  against  thee^  i.  e.  any  ground  of  litigation  or  complaint.  It  is 
not  necessarily  implied,  though  possibly  intended,  that  the  fault  is  on 
the  side  of  the  person  here  addressed.  One  may  have  something 
against  another,  i,  e.  something  to  say  or  to  demand,  though  really  his 
claim  is  groundless.  Nay,  the  case  is  stronger  upon  that  supposition, 
as  the  worshipper  is  then  advised  to  come  to  an  agreement  even  with  a 
captious  and  unjust  opponent,  rather  than  incur  the  risk  of  hating  him 
and  murdering  him  in  his  heart. 

24.  Leave  there  thy  gift  before  the  altar,  and  go  thy 
way ;  first  be  reconciled  to  thy  brother,  and  then  come 
and  offer  thy  gift. 

Rather  than  incur  this  fearful  risk  of  murderous  affections,  it  is 
better  to  postpone  or  interrupt  even  a  religious  service  which  may  be 
])erformed  hereafter,  while  the  opportunity  of  reconciliation  may  be 
lost  forever,  There^  before  the  very  altar  and  in  the  divine  presence. 
It  is  evident  that  this  is  not  suggested  as  a  case  at  all  likely  to  occur 
in  real  life,  or  even  as  a  formal  rule  to  be  observed  if  it  should  occur, 


138 


MATTHEW  5,  24.  25. 

but  rather  as  a  strong  assurance  that  it  would  be  right  and  proper 
thus  to  act.  if  there  were  no  other  means  of  accomplishing  the  end  re¬ 
quired.  The  same  mode  of  statement,  still  more  strongly  marked, 
occurs  below  in  ys.  29.  30.  Go  thy  icay^  an  old  English  phrase, 
equivalent  to  go  aicay^  though  it  may  seem  to  convey  more  to  a  mod¬ 
ern  ear.  First  and  then^  indicate  the  order  of  the  acts  prescribed. 
Be  reconciled^  not  merely  passively  consent  to  be  so,  but  use  active 
means  to  bring  about  a  reconciliation.  Come  and  offer,  literally,  coming 
(having  come  for  the  purpose)  offer,,  thus  resuming  and  completing  the 
act  interrupted  in  the  verse  preceding. 

25.  Agree  with  thine  adversary  quickly,  whiles  thou 
art  in  the  way  with  him  ;  lest  at  any  time  the  adversary 
deliver  thee  to  the  judge,  and  the  judge  deliver  thee  to 
the  officer,  and  thou  he  cast  into  prison. 

By  a  natural  transition  and  association,  the  imaginary  case  of 
an  offended  brother  is  exchanged  for  one  of  litigation,  the  vexatious 
incidents  of  which  are  then  urged  as  a  motive  for  preferring  certain 
compromise  to  doubtful  triumph  in  the  courts  of  law.  Both  supposi¬ 
tions  are  intended  to  enforce  the  duty  of  avoiding  alienations  and 
enmities,  as  really  at  variance  with  the  law  of  God,  and,  therefore, 
attended  by  the  rise,  or  rather  certaint}',  of  his  displeasure.  Pteduced 
to  the  form  of  a  comparison,  in  which  both  sides  of  the  analogy  are 
full}'-  stated,  it  may  thus  be  paraphrased:  ‘  As  in  the  case  of  a  contest¬ 
ed  law-suit,  it  ma}'^  sometimes  be  expedient  to  make  peace  by  sacrificing 
even  your  just  rights,  because  these  would  be  dearly  purchased  by 
the  risk  of  lailure,  condemnation  and  imprisonment,  perhaps  foi-ever ; 
how  much  more  ought  such  an  issue  to  be  sought  when  there  is 
nothing  to  be  gained  and  every  thing  to  lose  by  cherishing  the  enmity 
of  others.’  There  is  no  need  then  of  making  this  a  parable,  in  which 
the  adversary  (i.  e.  adverse  party  in  a  law-suit)  represents  either  God 
or  the  offended  brother  of  the  previous  context,  and  specific  meanings 
are  assigned  to  the  judge  and  officer.  It  seems  more  natural  to  take 
it  as  an  argument  a  fortiori,  founded  on  a  very  common  incident  of 
real  life,  and  not  admitting  of  an  emblematical  interpretation.  Agree,, 
literally,  be  well  minded  or  disposed,  i.  e.  to  reconciliation.  QuicMy,, 
soon,  without  delay,  before  it  is  too  late.  Whiles,,  an  old  form  of  the 
common  while  or  whilst,,  here  used  to  render  a  phrase  strictly  mean¬ 
ing  until  when  (or  what  time),,  followed  by  the  present  indicative  {d) 
because  referring  to  an  actual  condition,  not  a  future  or  contingent 
one.  In  the  way  with  him,  i.  e.  to  the  place  of  trial.  Seize  even  that 
last  opportunity  of  compromise  and  reconciliation.  Lest  at  any  time, 
the  strict  translation  of  a  particle  (/ui^TroTf),  which  often  denotes  mere 
contingency  without  distinct  reference  to  time  (see  below,  on  7,  G.  13, 
15,  29. 15.  32.  25, 9.  27,  G4.)  Deliver  to  the  judge,  by  prosecution 
or  complaint,  or  by  insisting  on  the  judges  giving  sentence.  Deliver 
to  the  officer,  by  passing  sentence  and  ordering  the  ministerial  attend- 


139 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  5,  25.  2G.  27. 

ant  of  the  court  to  execute  it.  Deliver^  in  both  cases,  means  to  put  it 
in  the  power  of  the  judge  or  his  executive  officer  to  do  their  duty,  or 
perform  their  functions  in  the  case.  There  is  of  course  no  allusion  to 
tyrannical  or  fraudulent  betrayal  of  the  prisoner  by  one  of  the  ])artics 
named  into  the  power  of  the  other.  Be  cast^  literally,  shall  he  cast,  a 
deviation  from  the  form  of  the  original  directly  opposite  to  that  in  vs. 
19.  20.  22,  but  equally  gratuitous  and  needless.  Thou  shall  he  cast, 
i.  e.  in  that  case,  if  that  happen. 

26.  Verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  Thou  shall  by  no  means 
come  out  thence,  till  thou  hast  paid  the  uttermost 
farthing. 

This  verse  might  seem  to  be  the  mere  completion  of  the  ideal 
case  described  in  the  preceding  verse,  suggesting  no  unusual  conclu¬ 
sion  of  such  matters.  But  the  solemn  formula  at  the  beginning,  like 
that  in  v.  18,  and  still  stronger  than  the  one  in  v.  20,  seems  to  show 
that  while  the  words  relate  directly  to  the  case  supposed,  they  are 
intended  to  apply  to  the  more  awful  case  elucidated  by  it,  and  to  re¬ 
mind  the  hearer  that  perpetual  imprisonment  for  debt  on  earth  is  but 
a  shadow  of  perpetual  imprisonment  in  hell  for  sin,  of  which  he  is  in 
danger,  not  only  when  he  commits  murder,  but  whenever  he  indulges 
feelings  of  hostility  in  which  the  germ  of  that  great  crime  is  latent, 
and  from  which  it  may  eventually  be  developed;  or  continues  wilfully 
a  state  of  alienation  which,  however  negative  or  harmless  it  may  seem, 
is  murderous  in  principle  alread3rj  and  may  one  day  become  murderous 
in  actual  effect.  Till  Ihou  hast,  though  it  implies  the  possibility  of  pay¬ 
ment,  at  the  same  time  suggests  the  debtor’s  hopeless  incapacity  to 
make  it.  The  coin  mentioned  is  of  still  less  value  than  a  British 
farthing,  or  our  own  cent,  and  theiefore  was  adopted  to  convey  what 
is  here  the  essential  idea,  that  of  an  intinitesimal  residuum. 

27.  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  by  them  of  old 

time,  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery.  * 

The  next  sin  to  which  our  Lord  applies  his  discriminating 
process  is  adultery,  pursuing  the  same  course  as  in  the  case  of  mur- 
dei-,  i.  e.  first  contrasting  his  interpretation  of  the  seventh  command¬ 
ment  with  the  common  one  (27.  28),  and  then  deducing  from  this  con¬ 
trast  an  impressive  moral  lesson  (29.  30.)  The  first  sentence  (v.  27), 
although  not  elliptical  in  form  or  syntax,  is  abridged  in  substance, 
and  to  be  interpreted  according  to  the  parallel  in  v.  21.  In  itself  con¬ 
sidered  it  is  simply  a  quotation  of  the  seventh  commandment,  nearly 
in  the  words  of  the  Septuagint  version  (Ex.  20.  14).  But  it  cannot 
be  with  this  commandment  that  he  here  contrasts  his  own  more  rigid 
rule  (v.  28) ;  fur  this  would  be  at  variance  with  his  own  relation  to 
the  law,  as  just  before  defined  (v.  17)^ and  with  the  whole  stiaicture 
of  this  passage,  which  is  obviously  directed,  not  against  the  law  itself, 


b-i 


140 


MATTHEW  5,27.28. 

but  against  the  customary  Pharisaic  view  of  it,  although  this  object 
is  more  fully  stated  in  some  parts  of  it  (c.  g.  in  v.  21  above  and  v.  43 
below,  where  the  corrupt  gloss  is  expressly  cited),  than  in  this  place 
and  in  vs.  31.  33.  38,  where  only  the  commandment  is  expressed,  but 
the  erroneous  view  of  it  sufficiently  disclosed  by  what  is  said  in  l  ef- 
utation  of  it.  In  the  case  before  us.  the  form  of  expression  rna}^  be 
thus  assimilated  to  the  one  in  v.  31 :  ‘  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said 
to  the  ancients.  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,  and  therefore  only 
he  who  does  commit  adultery,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  is  a 
transgressor  of  the  law.’  This  completion  of  the  sense  not  only 
brings  the  passage  into  harmony  with  those  before  and  after  it.  but 
furnishes  the  requisite  antithesis  to  v.  28,  which  otherwise  contains 
no  comparison  at  all  between  our  Lord’s  interpretation  of  the  law  and 
any  other,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  here  the  very  drift  of  the  dis¬ 
course. 

28.  But  I  say  unto  you,  That  whosoever  looketh  on 
a  woman  to  lust  after  her,  hath  committed  adultery  with 
her  already  in  his  heart. 

Blit  I  say  unto  you,  precisely  the  same  formula  employed  in  v. 
21,  and  therefore  to  be  understood  in  opposition,  not  to  tlie  com¬ 
mandment  which  had  been  expressly  quoted,  but  to  the  usual  inter¬ 
pretation  of  it,  which  is  tacitly  implied,  as  perfectly  familiar  to  the 
hearers.  Whosoever  looheth,  literally,  every  (one)  looMng,  not  simply 
seeing,  which  is  otherwise  expressed  in  Greek  as  well  as  English,  but 
voluntarily  and  actively  directing  the  sight  towards  an  object.  This 
idea  of  deliberate,  spontaneous  action  is  expressed  still  more  dis¬ 
tinctly  by  the  words  that  follow,  to  lust  after  (or  more  simply, 
to  desire,  or  as  Wiclif  renders  it,  to  coeet)  her,  in  which  the  form  is 
not  that  of  a  bare  infinitive,  but  the  stronger  one  of  an  infinitive  ]we- 
ceded  by  an  article  and  preposition  (irpus  to  eViSu/xT/a-nt)  and  denoting 
purpose  in  the  clearest  manner,  not  merely  so  as  to,  but  icith  a  view 
to,  the  indulgence  of  illicit  ancl  corrupt  desire.*  A  woman  is  more 
definitely  rendered  by  Tyndale  (a  loife),  and  interpreted  by  Cranmer 
(another  maids  wife),  which  agrees  well  with  the  fact,  that  in  Greek, 
as  in  French,  the  ordinary  word  for  wife  is  simply  woman  (ywr], 
femme),  which  is  more  than  eighty  times  so  rendered  in  our  version. 
(See  below,  22,  24-28,  where  both  words  are  correctly  used  in  the 
translation  of  the  same  brief  passage.)  It  is  also  recommended  b}'  the 
fact,  that  adultery  is  properly  a  violation  of  the  marriage  vow.  Liit 
as  the  Greek  word  is  in  itself  indefinite,  and  as  our  Saviour  evidently 
puts  a  wide  construction  on  the  law,  dealing  rather  with  its  spirit 
than  its  letter,  it  is  not  only  morally  more  safe,  but  philologically 
more  exact,  to  give  the  term  the  widest  sense  which  it  will  bear,  and 
which  is  really  its  proper  meaning,  the  specific  sense  of  wife  when  ap- 

*  The  reading  of  some  uncial  manuscripts  and  critical  editions  (aurps 
for  avriiy)  has  no  effect  upon  the  sense  but  only  on  the  form  of  the  construction. 


141 


MATTHEW  5,28.29. 

propriate  being  always  suggested  by  the  context.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  verb  (^.oixevo-eis,  eixoix^vaeu)  has  in  usage  a  specific  meaning  (^to 
commit  adultery)  and  must  not  be  adjusted  to  the  wide  sense  of  the 
noun  (ci  woman)^  so  as  to  denote  fornication,  or  illicit  intercourse  in 
general.  The  extension  of  the  doctrine  here  laid  down  to  other  cases 
besides  breaches  of  the  marriage  vow  is  not  to  be  secured  by  tamper¬ 
ing  with  the  words,  but  by  parity  of  reasoning,  and  by  observing  the 
extensive  application  of  the  principle  involved.  In  form,  the  declara¬ 
tion  relates  only  to  adultery ;  in  principle  and  spirit,  to  all  lechery 
(as  Wiclif  here  translates  it),  i.  e.  all  illicit  intercourse  between  sexes. 
Already,  before  any  overt  act  takes  place.  In  his  heart,  as  the  seat 
of  the  afiections,  or  more  gcnerall}^,  yet  in  strict  accordance  with  the 
usage  of  the  Greek  word,  in  his  mind,  as  distinguished  from  his  body 
(see  below,  on  13,  15).  The  doctrine  here  taught  in  relation  to  adul¬ 
tery  is  identical  with  that  laid  down  in  v.  22  respecting  murder, 
namely,  that  the  prohibition  of  the  law  extends,  not  only  to  the  overt 
act,  but  to  the  inward  disposition,  provided  this  be  truly  murderous 
in  one  case  and  adulterous  in  the  other.  Thus  explained,  it  is  only 
a  deduction  from  the  principle,  which  all  acknowledge,  that  external 
acts  derive  their  moral  character  entirely  from  the  motive  which  im¬ 
pels  to  them.  If  this  be  so,  it  is  impossible  that  the  guilt  of  any  ac¬ 
tion  should  begin  with  its  actual  performance,  and  the  sin  may  justly 
be  described  as  already  committed,  in  the  sight  of  God,  as  soon  as  the 
purpose  is  distinctly  formed,  or  even  the  unlawful  wish  deliberately 
cherished.  In  reference,  therefore,  to  the  two  great  cardinal  offences, 
Christ  here  vindicates  his  kingdom  from  the  foul  aspersion  of  establish¬ 
ing  a  lower  standard  than  the  one  erected  by  the  Pharisees  and 
Scribes  in  their  theoretical  and  practical  interpretation  of  the  law. 

29.  And  if  tliy  riglit  eye  offend  tliee^  pluck  it  out,  and 
cast  (it)  from  tliec  :  for  it  is  profitable  for  thee  that  one 
of  thy  members  should  perish,  and  not  (that)  thy  whole 
body  should  be  cast  into  hell. 

Here  again,  as  in  v.  23,  the  plural  pronoun  is  abruptly  changed  into 
the  singular,  as  if  the  object  of  address  were  no  longer  the  whole  mul¬ 
titude,  or  even  the  disciples  who  formed  part  of  it  (v.  2),  but  some  one 
individual  hearer.  The  design  of  this  change,  which  the  English  reader 
is  too  apt  to  overlook  from  liis  habitual  confusion  of  the  numbers  in 
colloquial  usage,  is  in  either  case  to  give  a  pointed,  personal  directness 
to  the  practical  advices  which  now  follow,  and  to  render  it  impossible 
for  any  one  who  hears  or  reads  the  Avords  to  treat  them  as  mere  bar¬ 
ren  generalities.  As  if  he  had  said,  ‘  Such  is  my  interpretation  of  these 
two  commandments,  which  I  state  to  all  of  you  collectively ;  and  now 
I  will  tell  each  one  of  you  how  he  ought  to  act  in  consequence.’  In 
this  respect  our  Lord  affords  a  model  to  his  ministers,  who  ought  nei¬ 
ther  to  neglect  the  general  exhibition  of  sound  doctrine,  nor  to  preter¬ 
mit  its  practical  and  personal  enforcement.  The  advice  itself  is  similar, 


142 


MATTHEW  5,29. 

in  form  and  substance,  to  an  exhortation  which  has  been  preserved  by 
Mark  (9,  43-48),  as  uttered  on  a  subsequent  occasion,  and  by  Matthew 
himself  (18,  8.  9),  perhaps  upon  a  third,  a  striking  instance  of  our 
Lord’s  didactic  method  of  repeating  the  same  lessons,  moi-e  or  loss 
modified,  to  different  assemblies.  Of  the  three  forms  in  which  this  ex¬ 
hortation  is  recorded,  that  before  us  is  the  briefest,  and  most  probably 
the  oldest,  thus  exhibiting  the  theme,  of  which  the  others  are  majestic 
variations.  Common  to  all,  because  essential  to  his  purpose,  is  the  solemn 
warning  against  being  tempted  and  betrayed  into  sin  by  any  thing  be¬ 
longing  to  themselves,  however  highly  valued  and  however  fondly 
cherished.  This  idea  he  expresses  in  a  manner  which  may  be  described 
as  characteristic  of  his  teaching,  i,  e.  by  assuming  an  extreme  case  and 
supposing  that  a  man’s  own  members,  even  those  which  he  particularly 
prizes,  and  to  lose  which  would  be  little  less  than  death  itself,  are  in¬ 
curable,  incorrigible  causes  or  occasions  of  transgression  against  God. 
The  case  is  not  presented  as  a  real  one,  or  one  which  there  is  reason  to 
anticipate  in  actual  experience;  but  if  it  should  occur,  if  the  only  alter¬ 
native  presented  to  a  man  were  deliberate  habitual  transgression  or  the 
loss  of  his  most  valuable  members,  what  would  be  his  choice  ?  If  he 
prefer  his  bodily  integrity  and  purchase  it  at  such  a  price,  he  has  rea¬ 
son  to  believe  himself  a  reprobate.  But  if  in  the  extreme  case  here 
supposed,  he  would  be  ready  to  choose  mutilation  rather  than  a  life  of 
sin,  that  choice  includes  all  minor  cases,  as  the  whole  includes  the  part, 
and  as  the  greater  comprehends  the  less. 

In  the  verse  before  us,  the  antithesis  presented  is  between  the  loss 
of  one  ejm,  with  salvation  or  admission  into  heaven,  and  the  use  of  two 
eyes,  with  perdition  or  the  everlasting  pains  of  hell.  That  this  is  the 
original  connection  or  occurrence  of  this  striking  passage,  may  be  gath¬ 
ered  from  the  otherwise  unimportant  circumstance,  that  the  eye, 
which  stands  last  in  the  other  cases  (Matt.  18,  19,  Mark  9,  47),  here 
stands  first,  in  obvious  and  beautiful  connection  with  the  previous  con¬ 
demnation  even  of  an  unchaste  look  as  virtual  adultery.  We  thus 
learn,  as  it  were,  the  very  genesis  or  origin  of  this  divine  injunction,  as 
developed  in  the  natural  succession  of  our  Saviour’s  thoughts  and 
words  in  his  organic  or  inaugural  discourse,  and  afterwards  repeated  in 
an  amplified  and  finished  but  essentially  unaltered  form  on  difierent 
occasions.  The  right  eye  seems  to  be  particularly  mentioned  as  com¬ 
monly  reckoned  the  most  valuable,  either  from  a  natural  difference  or 
one  produced,  in  all  the  double  members  of  the  body,  b}^  more  constant 
use.  Offend,  not  in  the  ordinary  modern  sense  of  displeasing  or  alien¬ 
ating  in  affection,  but  in  the  Latin  and  old  English  sense  of  stumbling 
or  being  made  to  stumble.  The  nearest  root  or  theme  to  which  it  can 
be  traced  in  classic  Greek,  denotes  a  trap  or  snare,  but  in  the  Hellen¬ 
istic  dialect  a  stumbling-block  or  any  hindrance  in  the  path,  over 
which  one  may  fall.  In  like  manner  the  derivative  verb  means  to 
make  one  fall  or  stumble,  a  natural  figure  both  for  sin  and  en-or,  and 
often  representing  both  as  commonly  connected  in  experience.  ‘  If  thy 
very  eye,  and  that  thy  right  eye,  incurably  betrays  thee  into  sin.’ 
The  present  tense  {(TKavhdkliei)  brings  the  supposition  home  with  great 


MATTHEW  5,29.30.31. 


143 


force  to  the  hearer’s  actual  experience.  Not  ‘  if  it  should  so  do  here¬ 
after,’  but  ‘if  it  is  so  doing  now.’  Gust  it  from  thee^  with  abhon-enco 
and  contempt,  not  only  as  a  small  price  to  be  paid  for  your  deliverance 
fi  om  sin,  but  as  intrinsically  hateful  on  account  of  its  supposed  aban¬ 
donment  to  sin  itself.  It  is  profitable  (or  expedient^  as  the  Rhemish 
Bible  renders  it),  i.  e.  comparatively,  as  appears  from  the  remaining 
clause,  but  is  not  expressed  in  the  verb  itself,  though  so  translated  in 
the  older  English  versions  (better  it  is^  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  Geneva). 
Perish^  or  be  lost,  suggesting  the  idea  of  perdition  or  eternal  miser}'-, 
though  strictly  inapplicable  to  an  amputated  or  exscinded  member. 
And  not^  i.  e.  not  expedient,  profitable,  good  for  thee,  conducive  to  thy 
happiness.  Cas(  the  same  word  that  was  previously  applied  to  the 
eye,  and  thus  suggesting  the  immense  disparity  of  loss  and  gain,  the 
disproportion  between  voluntary  rejection  of  a  single  member  and 
coercive  or  compulsory  rejection  of  one’s  self  forever.  Hell,  an  English 
word  originally  meaning  the  unseen  world,  or  the  world  of  spirits,  or 
the  state  of  the  dead,  and  thus  corresponding  to  the  Greek  word  hades 
(see  below,  on  11,23.  16,  18),  but  in  later  usage  limited  to  the  place 
of  future  torment,  and  employed  to  repre.sent  the  Greek  gehenna,  which 
has  been  explained  already.  (See  above,  on  v.  22.) 

30.  And  if  thy  right  hand  oifend  thee,  cut  it  off,  and 
cast  (it)  from  thee  :  for  it  is  profitable  for  thee  that  one 
of  thy  members  should  perish,  and  not  (that)  thy  whole 
body  should  he  cast  into  hell. 

The  same  supposition  is  then  made  as  to  the  right  hand,^  with  an 
exhortation  to  cut  it  of  (pv  more  exactly  ou(  which  is  a  stronger  ex¬ 
pression)  in  the  case  assumed,  to  wit,  if  it  cannot  be  retained  without 
a  certainty  of  sinning  against  God.  The  remainder  of  the  verse  is  an 
exact  repetition  of  the  twenty-ninth,  except  that  the  conjunctive  par¬ 
ticle  (kch)  with  which  it  opens  indicates  the  close  connecrion  and  re¬ 
semblance  of  the  two,  whereas  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  pre¬ 
ceding  (8i)  rather  introduces  an  addition  somewdiat  different  in  form, 
or  marks  the  transition  from  our  Saviour’s  doctrine  to  its  application. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  that  this  is  no  formal  rule  of  duty,  or  pro¬ 
vision  for  a  case  to  be  expected  in  real  life,  but  the  strongest  possible 
expression  of  the  principle  which  ought  to  govern  even  the  extremest 
case  conceivable,  much  more  the  usual  emergencies  of  every-day  ex¬ 
perience.  That  principle  is  simply  the  unsparing  and  indignant  sacri¬ 
fice  of  any  thing,  however  dear  and  to  appearance  indispensable,  which 
necessarily  incites  to  sin.  The  special  reference  in  this  connection  is, 
of  course,  to  all  indulgences,  however  lawful  in  themselves,  which  ex¬ 
perience  has  shown  to  be  nromotivc  of  unhallowed  passion. 

31.  It  hath  been  said,  Whosoever  shall  put  away  his 
wife,  let  him  give  her  a  writing  of  divoreement. 

Closely  connected  with  the  sin  of  adultery,  and  often  leading  to  it. 


144 


MATTHEW  5,81. 

as  explained  below,  was  the  practice  of  the  Jews  as  to  Divorce,  which  is 
the  next  topic  in  the  series  of  comparisons  between  the  Pharisaic  and 
the  Christian  ethics.  Here  again  the  abridged  form  of  citation  is  em¬ 
ployed,  the  words  actually  quoted  being  those  of  the  law  itself,  and 
the  false  interpretation  being  only  given  indirectly  in  the  refutation. 
The  idea  entertained  by  some,  that  in  these  cases  there  is  nothing 
omitted  or  to  be  supplied,  but  the  antithesis  is  simply  between  Christ 
and  Moses,  is  not  only  inconsistent  with  our  Lord’s  position  as  defined 
by  himself  in  this  discourse  (v.  17),  but  utterly  destructive  of  the  sym¬ 
metry  which  so  remarkably  distinguishes  this  portion  of  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount.  It  is  indeed  incredible,  without  the  clearest  demonstra¬ 
tion,  that  while  other  things  are  so  exactly  balanced,  this  should  have 
been  left  at  random ;  or  that  while  our  Lord  begins  and  ends  by  com¬ 
bating  the  Pharisaic  exposition  of  the  law,  and  placing  his  own  inter¬ 
pretation  in  the  strongest  contrast  with  it.  he  should  in  the  interven¬ 
ing  parts  attack  the  law  itself  and  introduce  a  rival  legislation.  This 
hypothesis  is  immeasurably  more  improbable  than  the  supposition  that 
the  introductory  formulas  are  in  some  places  more  laconic  than  in 
others,  and  in  that  case  to  be  supplemented  from  the  parallels.  Where 
so  simple  an  assumption  removes  all  the  difficulties  of  the  case  and 
makes  harmonious  what  would  otherwise  be  hopeless  discord,  every 
principle  of  sound  interpretation,  and  indeed  of  common  sense,  requires 
that  it  should  be  made.  But  although  we  are  authorized  by  these 
considerations  to  supply  the  tacit  reference  to  the  prevalent  corruption 
of  this  precG})r,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  corruption  was  itself  the 
same  as  in  the  other  cases.  This  is  a  point  to  be  determined  by  the 
circumstances  and  connection  of  the  case  before  us,  with  due  regard  to 
the  precise  meaning  of  the  first  clause.  It  was  said  (to  the  ancients  in 
the  law)  that  (the  Greek  particle  of  citation  not  expressed  in  English) 
whosoeter  shall,  the  same  use  of  the  future  as  in  the  translation  of  vs. 
19.  20.  22,  which  might  be  more  exactly  rendered,  whoever  puts  away. 
This  phrase,  however,  is  much  stronger  than  the  Greek  verb  (dnoXvar]), 
which  is  variously  rendered  elsewhere,  send  away  (Matt.  14,  15), 
loose  (18,  27),  release  (27, 15),  let  depart  (Luke  2,  29),  forgive  (Luke 
C,  37),  let  go  (Luke  14,  4),  dismiss  (15,  30),  and  set  at  liberty  (Heb. 
13,  23).  It  is  another  compound  of  the  verb  used  in  vs.  17.  19,  with 
the  same  essential  sense  of  loosening  or  undoing,  to  which  the  prepo¬ 
sition  (otto)  gives  the  accessory  notion  of  releasing  (as  an  object  bound 
by  untying),  letting  go,  without  the  implication  of  violent  expulsion, 
which  can  hardly  be  separated  from  the  phrase  put  away.  But  what¬ 
ever  be  the  import  of  the  term  in  general  usage,  it  is  'certainly  em¬ 
ployed  here  to  describe  repudiation  or  divorce.  The  precept  quoted  is 
still  found  in  Deut.  24,  1,  the  form  here  given  being  that  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint  version.  Writing  of  divorcement  answers  here  to  a  single 
Greek  word  {diroa-Tda-Lov).  which  in  Attic  law  denoted  the  apostasy 
or  criminal  defection  of  a  freedman  from  his  patron,  but  is  used  in  the 
Septuagint  with  writ  or  writing  Q3\lI\top  aTroo-raertou),*  to  translate- 

*  This  full  form  is  retained  by  Mark  (10,4),  and  by  Matthew  himself  in 
another  place  relating  to  this  subject.  (See  below,  on  19,  7.) 


MATTHEW  5,31.32. 


145 


a  Hebrew  phrase  (ni!n*’'n3  which  strictly  means  a  writ  of  exci¬ 

sion,  the  certificate  or  document  required  in  the  law  (Deut.  24,  1)  to 
be  given  to  the  wife  by  her  repudiating  husband.  According  to  the 
Jewish  traditions,  it  was,  even  in  the  time  of  Christ,  a  controverted 
question  between  the  schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai,  whether  the 
obscure  phrase  (“i-'n  rendered  some  undeanness^  but  literally 

meaning  nakedness  of  icord  (or  tiling)^  was  to  be  taken  in  a  moral 
sense  as  meaning  lewdness,  or  in  the  vague  sense  of  something 
disagreeable.  The  latter  doctrine  (that  of  Hillel)  is  said  to  have 
been  afterwards  carried  by  the  famous  Kabbi  Akiba  so  far  as  to 
allow  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  on  finding  one  who  pleased 
him  better.  That  the  bill  or  writing  was  not  a  charge  of  infi¬ 
delity,  but  rather  a  certificate  of  innocence  in  that  respect,  is  clear, 
because  it  was  to  be  delivered  to  the  wife  herself,  and  because  the 
law  required  an  adultress  to  be  punished  (Nurn.  5,  31),  not  to  be 
thus  quietly  dismissed.  The  writing  of  divorcement^  therefore,  was 
itself  no  hardship,  but  a  benefit,  protecting  the  divorced  wife  from  un¬ 
founded  imputations,  and  declaring  her  repudiation  to  be  founded  upon 
something  less  than  violation  of  her  marriage  vow.  This  was  the  re¬ 
quisition  of  the  law;  but  what  was  the  corruption  or  the  false  inter¬ 
pretation  of  it,  tacitly  implied  and  afterwards  refuted  ?  This,  we  learn 
from  a  fuller  declaration  of  our  Saviour  on  a  different  occasion,  Avhich 
has  been  preserved  by  Mark  (10,  2-12),  consisted  in  regarding  the  Mo¬ 
saic  precept  as  a  license  to  repudiate  at  will ;  whereas  it  was  a  merci¬ 
ful  pi'ovision  in  behalf  of  the  repudiated  Avoman,  designed  to  mitigate 
the  hardship  of  divorces,  even  Avhen  unlaAvful.  It  Avas  not  a  general 
permission  to  repudiate,  but  a  stringent  requisition  that  whoever  did 
so  should  secure  his  wife  from  injury  by  certifying  that  she  Avas  not 
chargeable  Avith  unchaste  conduct,  but  divorced  upon  some  minor  pre¬ 
text. 


32.  But  I  say  unto  you,  That  whosoever  shall  put 
away  his  wife,  saving  for  the  cause  of  fornication,  causeth 
her  to  commit  adultery  :  and  whosoever  shall  marry  her 
that  is  divorced,  committeth  adultery. 

In  opposition  to  this  prevalent  perversion  of  a  merciful  provision 
in  the  kAA--,  our  Saviour  teaches  tliat  so  far  from  making  divorce  easier, 
he  intended  to  forbid  it  altogether  as  the  law  did,  with  the  single  ex¬ 
ception  of  those  cases  Avhere  the  contract  had  already  been  annulled 
by  the  conduct  of  one  party,  i.  e,  by  desertion  (1  Cor.  7, 15)  or  adul¬ 
tery.  The  latter  is  here  designated,  not  by  a  specific  term  (juoiye/a) 
corresponding  to  the  verb  in  the  last  clause  and  to  the  kindred  one  in 
V.  27  above,*  but  by  a  more  generic  term  (Trogveia),  Avhich  hoAvever  is 
not  incorrect,  as  it  does  not  properly  mean  fornication  in  the  strict 

*  This  term  is  iised  elsewhere,  both  by  Matthew  (15, 19)  and  other  New  Tes¬ 
tament  writers.  (Mark  7,  21,  John  8,  3.  dal.  5, 19.) 

7 


146 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  5,  32.  33. 

sense,  as  distinguished  from  adultery,  but  lechery  or  whoredom,  as  in¬ 
cluding  both.  Saving  Jjecan&e  oj]  literally  outside  of  the  word  (cause 
or  reason)  of  unchastity.  The  exceptive  particle  (napeKTod)  belongs  to 
the  later  Greek  or  Hellenistic  dialect,  and  is  only  used  in  this  ligur- 
ative  way.  Gauseth^  literally  malees.,  a  use  of  the  verb  common  to 
both  idioms.  To  commit  adultery.,  i.  e.  to  violate  her  marriage  vow 
against  her  will,  by  lorced  separation  or  compulsory  desertion.  Or  the 
words  may  have  prospective  reference  to  the  case  mentioned  in  the 
last  clause,  that  of  a  re-marriage  on  the  part  of  the  repudiated 
wife,  who  thereby  violates  the  vow  by  her  own  act,  but  b}’’  the  pro¬ 
curement,  if  not  under  the  coercion,  of  her  husband.  The  Church  of 
Rome  regards  this  as  an  absolute  prohibition  of  re-marriage,  even  in 
the  case  here  mentioned,  that  of  fornication  in  the  wide  sense,  which 
in  the  case  of  married  persons  is  adultery.  The  Protestant  and  Orien¬ 
tal  Churches  hold  re-marriage  to  be  lawful  in  all  cases  where  divorce 
is,  and  explain  this  verse  accordingly.  (See  below,  on  19,  9.) 

33.  Again,  ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said  by 
them  of  old  time,  Thou  shalt  not  forswear  thyself,  but 
shalt  perform  unto  the  Lord  thine  oaths. 

The  next  item  in  this  catalogue  of  sins  is  that  of  swearing  or  un¬ 
lawful  oaths,  in  reference  to  which  there  seem  to  have  been  two  pre¬ 
vailing  errors  in  the  theory  and  practice  of  the  Jews.  The  first  was 
the  opinion  or  belief,  that  no  swearing  was  unlawful  except  false 
swearing  ;  the  other,  that  no  swearing  was  unlawful  except  swearing 
by  the  name  of  God.  In  opposition  to  these  errors  Christ  here  teaches 
that  the  sin,  where  there  is  any,  consists  not  in  swearing  falsely, 
which  is  a  distinct  offence  punished  both  by  God  and  man,  nor  in  any 
particular  form  of  oath,  but  in  swearing  at  all  without  necessity  or 
warrant.  The  introductory  formula  is  here  the  same  as  in  v.  21,  with 
a  single  word  prefixed  («y«m),  making  the  transition  to  another  pro¬ 
hibition  of  the  law.  This  is  not  found  in  the  decalogue,  nor  totidem 
verhis  elsewhere  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  is  a  pregnant  summary  which 
the  people  may  have  often  heard  from  their  instructors  as  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  the  law  upon  the  subject.  The  first  or  prohibitory  clause 
(thou  shall  not  perjure  or  forswear  thyself  i.  e.  swear  falsely)  is  an 
abridgment  of  the  precept  in  Lev.  19,12:  ‘’Ye  shall  not  swear  by 
my  name  falsely,  neither  shalt  thou  profane  the  name  of  thy  God.  I 
(am)  the  Lord  ;  ”  or,  as  the  second  member  of  the  sentence  might  be 
rendered,  “and  (thereby)  profane  the  name  of  thy  God.  (even)  me, 
Jehovah.”  The  second  or  preceptive  clause  (thou  shalt  perform., 
literall}'’  pay  or  give  hack.,  to  the  Lord  thine  oaths,  not  merely  what 
has  been  directl}'  promised  to  himself,  but  all  engagements  sanctioned  by 
an  oath  in  his  name)  is  a  paraphrase  or  condensation  of  the  command 
in  Numb.  30,  2  (Heb.  3) :  “If  a  man  vow  a  vow  unto  the  Lord,  or 
swear  an  oath  to  bind  his  soul  with  a  bond  (literall}^,  to  bind  a  bond 
upon  his  soul),  he  shall  not  break  (literally,  profane,  the  same  word 
that  occurs  in  the  citation  from  Tieviticus)  his  word  ;  according  to  all 


\ 


MATTHEW  5,33.34. 


147 


that  proceedeth  out  of  his  mouth  (see  above,  on  4,  4)  shall  he  do.” 
The  same  command  is  found  in  Deut.  23.  23,  in  a  more  general  form, 
“That  which  is  gone  out  of  thy  lips  thou  shalt  keep  and  do,”  vhich 
the  last  clause  then  applies  to  a  specific  case  already  mentioned  in  the 
context.  Of  these  commands,  both  negative  and  positive,  the  verse 
before  us  is  a  correct  summary.  To  assume  that  our  Lord  is  combat¬ 
ing  the  law  itself,  we  have  already  seen  to  be  absurd,  and  it  is  doubly 
so  in  this  case,  as  his  own  injunction  in  the  following  verses  does  not 
contradict  this  precept  in  the  least,  and  must  therefore  be  directed 
against  some  erroneous  explanation  of  it,  not  expressly  stated  but  im¬ 
plied  in  his  correction  of  it.  This  erroneous  view  of  the  law  in  ques¬ 
tion  seems  to  have  arisen  from  the  fact,  that  in  Leviticus  (19,12)  the 
sin  forbidden  is  the  profanation  of  the  name  Jehovah  b}^  false  swear¬ 
ing.  Hence  it  was  inferred  that  where  either  of  these  elements  was 
wanting,  or  in  other  words  where  the  swearing  was  neither  frlse  nor 
expressly  by  the  name  of  God,  there  was  no  sin  at  all  committed. 


34.  But  I  say  unto  you,  Swear  not  at  all :  neither  by 
heaven  ;  for  it  is  QoBs  throne. 

In  opposition  to  this  too  restricted  view  of  the  divine  prohibition, 
he  declares,  as  its  true  import  and  the  sense  in  which  ho  should  him¬ 
self  enforce  it,  that  they  should  not  swear  at  all  (gXcoj),  wholly,  alto¬ 
gether,  an  adverb  which  qualifies  the  negative  and  makes  it  absolute, 
as  in  the  somewhat  different  phrase  here  used  in  English.  The  only 
question  has  respect  not  to  its  meaning  but  to  the  extent  of  its  appli¬ 
cation.  By  a  possible  construction,  not  at  all  (fxr)  oXcos)  may  have  ref¬ 
erence  to  the  form  of  the  oath,  as  being  in  the  name  of  God  or  not 
‘  1  forbid  not  only  oaths  in  the  divine  name,  but  others  which  are  really 
disguised  forms  of  the  same  thing,’  and  of  which  he  then  proceeds  to 
give  examples.  By  another  possible  construction,  not  at  all  lefers 
not  to  the  form  but  to  the  act  of  swearing.  This,  which_  is  the  usual 
construction,  really  includes  the  other,  since  a  prohibition  of  all 
forms  of  swearing  is  a  prohibition  of  swearing  itself.  The  particular 
oaths  w'hich  follow  arc  no  doubt  familiar  samples  of  those  then  m  com 
mon  use,  and  must  be  understood  as  representing  the  whole  class  of 
frivolous  and  uncoinmanded  modes  of  swearing.  By  lieaven^  liteiaHy, 
in  the  heaven,  a  Hebrew  idiom,  the  preposition  (2)  usually  answering 

to  €v  beino-  also  used  in  other  combinations,  and  among  the  rest  in 
swearing.  (Gen.  22, IG.  "gngSil’s  lay  myself  have  I  swom.^  In 

Other  parts  of  the  New  Testament  we  find  the  classical  construction 
of  the  same  verb  with  the  preposition  kutu  (lleb.  G,  13)  and  with  the 
accusative  (Jas.  5, 12).  The  throne  of  GeJ,  a  beautiful  description  of 
heaven,  also  found  in  the  Old  Testament  (Isai.  GG,  1).  It  is  not  heic 
given  as  a  reason  why  heaven  is  too  holy  to  be  sworn  by,  but  to  show 
that  swearing  by  it  is  in  fact  to  swear  by  God  himself.  An  oatn,  as 
a  religious  act,  consisting  in  the  solemn  invocation  of  an  oinniscient 
witness  to  attest  the  truth  of  wdiat  is  uttered,  cannot,  from  its  very 


148 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  5,  35.  3G. 


nature,  terminate  on  any  creature,  mncli  less  on  a  lifeless  and  material 
object.  Swearing  by  heaven,  therefore,  either  has  no  meaning,  or  de¬ 
rives  it  from  the  fact  that  heaven  is  the  residence,  tiie  court,  the 
throne  of  Got.  (See  above,  on  v.  S.)  This  is  designed  to  show  that 
an  unlawful  oath,  judicial  or  colloquial,  is  not  divested  of  its  criminal¬ 
ity  by  any  euphemistical  evasion  or  disguise  of  the  divine  name, 
which  is  really  involved,  not  irxerely  in  the  form  but  in  the  substance 
and  the  very  definition  of  the  oath  itself.  Hence  the  simple  phrase, 
I  sweai%  or  its  equivalents,  is  as  real  and  direct  an  appeal  to  God,  as 
if  his  names  and  titles  were  expressly  uttered. 

35.  Nor  by  tliG  earth  ;  for  it  is  his  footstool :  neither 
by  Jerusalem  ;  for  it  is  the  city  of  the  great  King. 

The  Same  thing  is  here  said  of  the  earth,  described  as  God’s  foot- 
stool  (or  retaining  the  pleonastic  form  of  the  original,  the  footstool 
of  his  feet)  in  the  sublime  passage  of  Isaiah  (66,  1)  previously  quoted 
or  referred  to.  The  design  is  not  poetical  embellishment,  but  the  sug¬ 
gestion  through  a  familiar  part  of  Scripture,  that  as  the  throne  and 
its  accompanying  footstool  derive  all  their  dignity  from  him  who  sits 
above  tliem,  so  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  which  bear  a  similar  rela¬ 
tion  to  the  J^Iost  High,  are  entirely  dependent  upon  that  relation  for 
the  least  significancy  in  religious  acts,  and  more  especially  in  that  of 
swearing.  In  other  words,  he  who  swears  by  the  earth  either  swears 
b}^  God  or  does  not  swear  at  all.  In  the  last  clause  the  same  thing  is 
said  of  Jernsalein,  but  with  a  slight  change  of  expression  not  retained 
in  the  translation,  namely,  the  substitution  of  another  preposition 
(fiv)  which  properly  means  into  after  verbs  of  motion,  but  has  fre¬ 
quently  the  weaker  sense  of  to  or  towards^  expressive  of  direction 
without  actual  entrance.  This  is  probably  the  meaning  here,  involv¬ 
ing  an  allusion  to  the  ancient  although  uncorninanded  practice  of  pray¬ 
ing  towards  the  holy  city.  (See  I  Kings  8.  38.  42.  44.  Han.  6, 10.)  As 
if  he  had  said,  ‘neither  swear  (turning)  towards  Jerusalem,’  which  is 
the  more  natural  as  uttered  by  our  Lord  in  Galilee.  Because  it  is 
the  city  of  the  great  hing^  the  capital  or  royal  residence  of  Jehovah, 
as  the  immediate  head  of  the  theocracy,  and  owes  to  that  relation  all 
its  sanctity  and  even  its  significancy  as  an  object  to  be  sworn  by  ;  so 
that  he  who  swears  by  it  either  swears  by  God  or  does  not  swear 
at  all. 

36.  Neither  sbalt  tliou  swear  by  tby  head^  because 
thou  canst  not  make  one  hair  white  or  black. 

The  third  and  last  familiar  form  of  oath  prohibited  is  by  a  man’s 
own  head ;  but  here  the  reason  given  is  not  only  more  obscure,  but  at 
first  sight  altogether  diJerent  from  that  suggested  in  the  other  cases. 
Instead  of  showing  the  relation  of  the  object  to  the  majesty  of  God,  he 
points  out  its  relation  to  the  littleness  of  man,  and  his  utter  incapacity 
to  exercise  the  least  controlling  power  over  it.  However  true  this 
may  be,  it  does  not  at  once  commend  itself  to  every  mind  as  a  suffi- 


MATTHEW  5,  36.37. 


149 


dent  reason  for  the  prohibition.  The  difficulty  may  be  somewhat  les¬ 
sened  by  explaining  white  or  Mach  as  a  pi'over'bial  expression,  meaning 
any  kind  \vhatevcr,  and  giving  to  the  veib  its  strongest  sense,  that  of 
creation.  ‘  Thon  canst  not  make  (or  bring  into  existence  even)  one 
hair  (whether)  white  or  black.'  It  is  then  a  denial  of  man’s  power, 
not  to  change  the  colour  of  his  hair,  which  is  continually  done  by  ar¬ 
tificial  means,  but  to  produce  one  of  any  colour,  which,  however  trivial 
the  ehbet  may  be,  is  a  creative  act.  The  object  of  the  clause  may  then 
be  to  suggest,  in  an  indirect  and  possibly  proverbial  form,  the  correl¬ 
ate  or  converse  of  this  proposition,  namely,  that  the  head  of  man  is  not 
a  creation  of  his  own  but  of  God,  and  exclusively  at  God’s  disposal ; 
so  that  if  it  can  be  sworn  by,  it  is  only  as  a  needless  and  an  iincom- 
manded  oath  by  God  himself,  the  more  to  be  avoided  because  destitute 
of  even  that  slight  pretext  which  might  seem  to  justify  the  oaths  just 
mentioned  b}'’  his  throne,  his  footstool,  and  his  ro3uil  city,  all  which 
may  be  used  to  represent  him  in  a  way  that  seems  entirely  inappro¬ 
priate  to  the  human  head. 

37.  But  let  your  communication  be,  Yea,  yea  ;  Nay, 
nay  :  for  whatsoever  (is)  more  than  these  cometh  of  evil. 

But  to  what  conclusion  does  all  this  point  7  That  the  forms 
of  swearing  here  forbidden  were  irreverent  and  needless  substitutes 
for  solemn  oaths  by  God  himself,  and,  therefore,  ought  to  give  , 
place  to  the  latter  ?  This  is  certainly  included,  and  if  this  were 
all,  it  would  determine  not  at  all  in  v.  34  to  mean  in  none  of 
the.se  accustomed  forms,  but  only  in  the  name  of  God.  The  passage 
then  would  be  a  simple  prohibition  of  all  indirect  and  covert  modes  of 
swearing,  as  if  these  could  lessen  or  destroy  the  guilt  of  either  perjury 
or  blasphemy.  But  that  this  is  not  the  true  sense,  or  at  most  the  full 
sense  of  the  jmohibition,  becomes  absolutely  certain  from  the  verse  be¬ 
fore  us,  which  is  to  be  taken  in  connection  with  the  first  clause  of  v. 
34.  the  intervening  clauses  being  mere  specifications  of  familiar  modes 
of  swearing  comprehended  in  the  pro-hibition.  ‘But  I  say  unto  you, 
swear  not  at  all  (not  even  by'  the  use  of  customaiy  petty  oaths),  but 
let  your  word  (talk,  form  of  speech)  be  yea,  yea,  nay,  nay’  (or  in  mod¬ 
ern  English,  yes  and  no),  the  duplication  of  the  terras  denoting  fre- 
qnency°or  constancy.  ‘Be  always  saying  yes  or  no,  and  nothing 
more.’  If  the  preceding  context  weiv  a  .simple  prohibition  of  the 
customary  oaths  there  mentioned,  with  an  implied  pei-mission  or 
encouragement  to  u.se  the  solemn  form  of  oath  by  God  himself, 
the  verse  before  us  would  bo  utterly  irrelevant  if  not  directly  contra¬ 
dictory  to  such  a  purpose.  The  conclusion  must  have  been  in  that 
case,  ‘let  your  oaths  be  in  the  name  of  God  alone,’  whereas  it  is 
in  fact,  ‘let  your  speech  be  without  oaths.’  with  a  positive  sug¬ 
gestion  of  the  simple  affirmations  and  negations  which  should  take 
their  place.  Whatsoever  {ichatevei\  or  simply  what)  is  more  than 
these  (or  more  exactly,  the  abounding^  the  excess,^  of  these),  i.  c.  what¬ 
ever  goes  beyond  these  simple  affirmations  and  negations.  Cometh  of, 


150 


MATTIIEAY  5,37. 

literally,  is  from  or  out  of^  which  is  obviously  meant  to  indicate  the 
soui'ce  or  origin  of  such  expressions.  Eml  is  definite  in  Greek,  the  evil^ 
or  the  wiclced^  and  agreeably  to  usage  may  be  either  abstract,  out  of 
wichedness,  from  moral  evil  (as  in  llom.  12,  9.  1  Thes.  5,  22.  2  Thes. 
3,  3.  Jas.  4, 16),  or  personal  and  cowcTQto,^  from  the  evil  {oiie')^  so  called 
by  way  of  eminence,  because  he  was  the  tempter  of  mankind  and  the 
source  of  human  sin  and  misery  (as  in  1  John  2, 13.  14.  3, 12.  5,18). 
See  below,  on  G,  13,  where  the  same  ambiguity  exists.  In  either  case, 
the  habit  of  exceeding  the  most  simple  forms  of  affirmation  is  prohib¬ 
ited,  not  merely  by  an  arbitrary  rule  or  absolute  authority,  but  as  in¬ 
trinsically  evil  in  its  source  and  moral  quality.  Unless  we  deny  to  the 
discourse  all  coherence  and  consistency,  in  which  case  it  would  not  be 
worth  interpreting,  we  must  admit  that  vs.  34  and  37,  taken  together, 
do  contain  a  prohibition  of  all  swearing.  But  in  wffiat  sense  and  wnth 
what  extent  of  application  ?  As  to  this  point  there  has  always  been 
a  great  variety  of  judgments,  wffiich  however  may  be  readily  reduced 
to  these  four  classes.  1.  The  Quakers  and  some  others  understand 
the  passage  as  an  universal  prohibition  of  all  oaths,  or  appeals  to  God 
in  attestation  of  the  truth,  as  w'cll  judicial  as  colloquial.  2.  Some  sup¬ 
pose  the  prohibition  to  be  absolute,  but  applicable  not  to  the  existing 
state  of  things  but  to  a  future  condition  of  society,  when  the  Messiah’s 
reign  shall  reach  its  consummation.  3.  The  great  mass  of  Christians 
in  all  ages  have  understood  the  prohibition  as  extending  only  to  the 
use  of  oaths  in  conversation,  or  to  their  irreverent  and  needless  use  in 
courts  of  justice  and  in  other  public  offices.  4.  A  fourth  view^  of  the 
passage  understands  it  as  prohibiting  all  voluntary  swmaring,  both  ju¬ 
dicial  and  colloquial,  the  latter  being  never  right,  the  former  only  wGien 
imposed  by  adequate  authority,  and  in  prevention  of  a  greater  evil.  The 
first  of  these  opinions  is  refuted  a  'priori  by  the  fact  that  an  oath  is  a 
religious  act  and  therefore  cannot  be  intrinsicall}^  evil,  or  at  all  unless 
universally  prohibited ;  that  such  a  prohibition  is  at  variance  wntli  the 
oaths  so  constantly  ascribed  to  God  himself  in  Scripture,*  and  with 
the  practice  of  our  Lord  himself  f  and  that  of  his  apostles.  The  second 
explanation  is  refuted  by  its  fanciful  and  arbitrary  character,  the  same 
assumption  being  equally  admissible  in  reference  to  every  prohibition 
of  the  decalogue,  and  by  the  danger  thence  arising  of  an  universal  re¬ 
laxation  of  the  principles  of  morals,  founded  on  the  pretext  that  society 
is  still  imperfect ;  and  by  the  arbitrary  treatment  of  a  simple  categorical 
proliibition,  as  being  practically  no  prohibition  at  all.  The  objection  to 
the  third  and  common  view  is,  that  it  leaves  too  great  a  license  to  judicial 
swearing,  and  apparently  connives  at  the  most  hideous  abuses  in  offi¬ 
cial  practice.  All  these  objections  are  avoided  by  the  fourth  interpre¬ 
tation,  which  sufficiently  provides  for  all  official  and  judicial  oaths  when 
really  expedient,  but  condemns  perversion  and  excess  in  these,  as  well 
as  all  oaths  used  m  conversation,  and  is  further  recommended  by  the 

*  See  for  example  Gen.  22,  IG.  Ps.  05, 11.  Ileb.  G,  13.  7,  21. 

t  See  below,  on  2G,  G3.  and  compare  iiom.  1,  9.  2  Cor.  1,  23.  Phil.  1,  8.  1  Thes. 
2,  5.  10. 


151 


M  A  T  T  II  E  W  5,  37.  38. 

obvious  analogy  of  the  sixth  commandment,  which  prohibits  homicide 
in  terms  as  strong  and  nniversal,  though  almost  unanimously  under¬ 
stood  not  only  to  excuse  the  act  of  killing  under  certain  circumstanceSj 
but  to  require  it  as  a  duty  under  certain  others. 

38.  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  An  eye  for 
an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth. 

A  fifth  sin,  as  to  which  they  were  to  look  for  less  indulgence  in 
Messiah’s  reign  than  under  the  corrupt  admini-tration  of  the  law  by 
scribes  and  pharisees,  was  the  indulgence  of  a  vengeful  and  vindictive 
spirit.  The  legal  pretext  under  which  this  vice  was  practised  was  the 
lex  talionis^  or  rule  of  retribution  found  in  Ex.  21,  24.  Lev.  24,  20. 
Deut.  19,  21.  Ye  liaxe  heard  (from  the  expounders  of  the  law)  that  it 
teas  said^  eye  for  eye^  tooth  for  tooth.  The  indefinite  article  need  not 
be  expressed,  and  weakens  the  whole  sentence.  Here  again,  there  is 
assumed  a  false  interpretation  of  the  dictum,  which  is  really  a  part  of 
the  Mosaic  law,  and  an  erroneous  practice  founded  on  it.  What  this 
prevailing  error  was  has  been  disputed,  some  supposing  that  it  was  the 
transfer  of  a  rule  designed  to  govern  the  proceedings  of  the  magistrate 
to  piivate  life,  the  substitution  of  personal  revenge  for  public  punish¬ 
ment.  Another  supposition  is  that  it  consisted  in  regarding  as  a  rule 
at  all,  to  l»e  acted  upon  even  in  judicial  process,  what  was  only  a  pro¬ 
verbial  expression  of  the  general  pi  inciple  of  righteous  retribution  un¬ 
derlying  all  law,  and  repeatedly  exhibited  in  that  of  Moses  rather  in 
tevrorem  than  as  something  to  be  carried  out  in  practice.  This  opinion 
is  defended  on  the  ground  of  the  severity  and  cruelty  supposed  to  be 
involved  in  such  a  principle  of  punishment ;  by  the  difficulty  of  apply¬ 
ing  it  in  practice ;  by  the  absence  of  any  one  recorded  instance  of  its 
execution;  and  by  the  reason  of  it  given  in  Deuteronomy  (19,20), 
“  those  which  remain  shall  hear  and  fear,  and  shall  henceforth  commit 
no  more  any  such  evil  among  you.”  But  the  terror  here  referred  to  is 
that  arising  from  the  execution,  not  from  the  mere  threatening,  of  re¬ 
taliation,  The  rule,  moreover,  stands  recorded  in  the  midst  of  laws 
which  were  evidently  meant  to  be  literally  understood  and  acted  on. 
See  Ex.  21,  22-26.  Lev.  24, 17-21,  in  the  latter  of  which  places  it  is 
moreover  clothed  in  as  direct  and  positive  a  form  as  any  proper  law 
could  be — breach  for  breach,  eye  for  63-6,  tooth  for  tooth  ;  as  he  hath 
caused  (literally,  given)  a  blemish  in  the  man,  so  shall  it  be  done  to 
(literally,  given  in)  him,”  If  these  considerations  are  not  suflicient  to 
outweigh  those  previousl}'  stated,  and  to  prove  conclu.sively  that  the 
lex  talionis  was  a  law  in  the  pi'oper  sense  and  habitually  carried  into 
execution ;  it  may  at  least  serve  to  deter  us  from  too  hastily  asserting 
the  contrary,  and  lead  us  to  adopt  an  explanation  of  the  passage  now 
before  ns,  not  involving  either  supposition  as  to  the  precise  design  of 
this  terrific  law  or  the  fact  of  its  literal  execution.  This  seems  to  be 
the  case  with  the  first  interpretation  mentioned  which,  without  de¬ 
ciding  the  disputed  question  either  wa}^  assumes  mereh'-  that  the  lex 
talionis^  whatever  its  legitimate  design  and  use,  had  been  adopted  as  a 


152 


MATTHEW  5,  38.39. 


rule  of  private  justice,  authorizing  every  injured  person  to  redress  his 
own  wrongs,  an  abuse  not  peculiar  to  the  east  but  singularly  rife  there, 
as  appears  from  the  practice  of  the  Bedouins  at  this  day.  It  is  essen¬ 
tially  the  same  wild  justice  that  is  known  among  ourselves  as  l3mch- 
law,  whether  administered  by  one  or  many,  and  too  often  jiistilied, 
not  merely  by  the  clamor  of  excited  mobs,  but  by  the  verdict  of  en¬ 
lightened  juries.  It  is  needless  to  observe  that  what  is  eminently  right 
and  wholesome  in  the  hands  of  a  divine  or  a  divinely  aided  judge,  may 
be  the  height  of  tyranny  in  any  other. 


39.  But  I  say  unto  you,  That  ye  resist  not  evil  :  but 
whosoever  shall  smite  thee  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to 
him  the  other  also. 

But  I sayurdo  you^  in  opposition  not  to  the  lex  talionis  as  a  maxim 
of  the  law,  but  to  this  abuse  of  it  as  justifying  personal  revenge.  That 
ye  resist  not  is  in  Greek  simply  not  to  resist.  Evil.,  the  same  ambigu¬ 
ous  expression  that  occurs  above  in  v.  37,  and  admitting  here  too  of 
the  same  constructions,  namely,  evil  (in  the  abstract),  or  the  wiched 
(man),  by  whom  you  have  been  injured.  But^  on  the  contrary,  so  far 
from  thus  retaliating.  This  is  then  more  positivel}'  and  specifically 
stated  by  supposing  a  familiar  case  which  might  occur  in  any  man’s 
experience,  and  therefore  furni.shes  a  surer  test  of  the  dispositions  here 
required.  The  only  question  of  interpretation  is  one  running  through 
the  next  three  verses,  which  are  filled  with  other  cases  of  the  same 
kind,  calling  for  the  application  of  the  same  rule  and  the  display  of  the 
same  spirit.  This  question  is,  whether  the  duty  here  enjoined  is  that 
of  absolute  and  passive  non-resistance  in  all  cases  of  oppression  or 
injurious  treatment.  The  afiBrmative  can  be  defended  only  on  the 
general  principle  or  law  of  language,  that  its  obvious  and  proper  sense 
must  always  Ije  entitled  to  the  preference,  and  can  only  be  deprived 
of  it  by  positive  considerations,  showing  that  some  other  sense  was 
really  intended.  The  question,  therefore,  is  whether  there  are  any 
such  considerations  in  the  case  before  us,  and  how  far  they  go  in 
weakening  the  general  presumption  and  antecedent  probability  in 
favour  of  the  literal  and  strict  sense.  1.  The  first  consideration  of  this 
nature  that  presents  itself  is  one  derived  from  general  cxpei  ience,  the 
fact,  that  the  commandment,  strictly  understood,  has  never  been 
habitually  carried  into  execution,  even  by  the  most  devoted  exemplary 
Christians.  The  apparent  exceptions  to  this  statement  have  been 
cither  too  confined  or  shortlived  to  affect  its  general  truth,  or  have 
extended  only  to  the  negative  command  of  non-resistance,  without 
including  the  more  positive  injunction  to  encourage  and  solicit  further 
injury.  Now  a  precept  which  has  never  been  reduced  to  practice 
must  be  impracticable  or  impossible,  and  cannot  therefore  have  been 
uttered  in  the  sense  thus  put  upon  it.  2.  To  this  argument  a  posteriori 
may  bo  added  another  a  priori^  drawn  from  the  uni-easonablcness  and 
injustice  of  the  law,  as  thus  explained,  as  violating  general  principles 


MATTHEW  5,  39. 


153 


of  right,  deliberately  sacrificing  that  of  the  injured  and  oppressed, 
facilitating  and  encouraging  injustice,  and  subverting  all  the  principles 
on  which  society  has  been  constructed.  3.  A  third  consideration 
adveise  to  the  strict  interpretation,  is  that  Clirist  himself  did  not  act 
upon  his  own  rule  thus  explained,  but  when  smitten  by  a  servant  of 
the  High  Priest,  instead  of  courting  further  outrage,  arrested  it  by 
strong  expostulation  (John  18,  22.  23 j  ;  and  that  Paul,  when  treated 
in  like  nmnner,  still  more  earnestly  resented  it  (Acts  23,  2.  3).  4.  It 

should  also  be  considered,  that  the  use  of  strong  and  paradoxical  ex¬ 
pressions,  to  arouse  attention  and  provide  for  extreme  cases,  is  not 
only  an  occasional  phenomenon  but  a  standing  characteristic  of  our 
Saviour’s  didache  or  mode  of  teaching,  not  without  examples  in  this 
very  chapter,  which  creates  a  presumption  opposite  to  that  arising 
from  the  general  law  of  language  now  in  question.  5.  Lastly,  tlie 
peculiar  structure  of  this  part  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  malces  it 
almost  if  not  absolutely  certain,  that  in  this,  as  in  the  similar  injunc¬ 
tions  which  precede,  we  are  not  to  look  for  absolute  or  abstract  rules, 
extending  to  all  cases,  but  to  some  peculiar  case,  suggested  in  the 
context.  What  that  case  is,  we  may  learn  from  the  preceding  verse, 
where  the  text  or  theme  of  this  particular  passage  is  the  lex  talionis, 
with  its  popular  perversion  as  a  legal  pretext  for  revenge.  If  there  be 
any  kind  of  logical  coherence  or  consistency  bctwccsi  the  two  successive 
verses,  the  second  no  less  than  the  first,  must  have  respect  to  this 
specific  sin,  and  the  abstinence  commanded  must  be,  not  from  simple 
self-defence  or  self-protection,  but  from  such  as  would  be  necessarily 
vindictive  or  revengeful  in  its  character.  The  limitation  really  implied 
though  not  expressed,  is  probably  the  same  as  in  vs.  29.  30.  where  the 
language  is  still  stronger  and  more  paradoxical,  and,  therefore,  more 
available  in  explanation  of  that  now  before  us.  As  no  sane  man  has 
ever  understood  those  verses  as  a  formal  rule  of  ordinary  duty  calling 
for  the  litei-al  excision  of  the  eye  or  hand  as  soon  as  cither  has  become 
the  cause  or  instrument  of  sin;  so  no  sane  man  has  any  right  cr 
reason  to  insist  upon  a  similar  interpretation  of  the  words  before  us. 
Nor  would  any  such  disparity  of  treatment  ever  have  existed,  if  the 
duty  sujiposed  to  be  enjoined  had  been  equally  startling  and  icvolting 
in  both  cases,  lint  the  man  who  is  fanatical  enough  to  let  himself  be 
robbed  and  beaten,  in  supposed  obedience  to  our  Lord’s  command, 
though  few  have  ever  gone  so  far  as  to  turn  the  other  cheek,  or  press 
the  spoiler  to  take  more,  may  not  be  quite  fanatical  enough  to  ampu¬ 
tate  his  own  right  hand,  though  no  less  explicitly  required  by  the  very 
same  authority  and  almost  in  the  very  same  form.  But  even  if  it  be 
admitted,  as  a  negative  conclusion,  that  the  precept  now  before  us  is 
not  to  be  strictly  understood  as  a  general  and  formal  imle  of  duty,  it 
may  still  be  asked  how  we  must  understand  it  and  obey  it?  The 
solution  of  this  question  is  afforded  by  the  same  analogy  already  cited, 
that  of  vs.  29.  30.  If,  as  we  have  seen  already,  what  is  there  .said  has 
respect  to  an  extreme  case,  not  to  be  expected,  much  less  sought  for, 
in  our  every-day  experience,  namely,  that  of  an  incurable  incom[)ati- 
biiity  between  obedience  to  the  will  of  God  and  the  retention  of  our 


154 


MATTHEW  5,39.40. 


dearest  members,  and  in  that  case  requires  us  to  exscind  them  with¬ 
out  mercy  j  so  the  words  before  us  may  be  understood  to  mean  that 
rather  than  become  our  own  avengers,  or  indulge  a  spirit  of  vindictive 
retribution,  we  must  suffer  any  form  or  measure  both  of  wrong  and 
insult ;  whether  that  recorded  in  the  last  clause  of  the  present  verse, 
or  those  enumerated  in  the  three  that  follow,  which  are  mere  additional 
specifications  or  examples  of  the  rule  propounded  here.  Should  it  be 
objected  that  this  explanation  arbitrarily  restricts  a  precept  general  in 
form,  by  introducing  a  specific  application,  not  required  or  indicated 
in  the  text,  the  answer  is,  that  this  specific  application  is  the  very 
subject  of  the  passage  as  propounded  in  v.  38,  and  that  the  notion  of 
an  absolute  and  general  command  could  only  have  arisen  from  the 
insulation  of  the  precept  and  habitual  neglect  of  its  connection. 

40.  And  if  any  man  will  sue  thee  at  the  law,  and 
take  away  thy  coat,  let  him  have  (thy)  cloak  also. 

Eather  than  indulge  the  revengeful  spirit  here  condemned,  be  ready 
to  endure  not  only  personal  indignity  but  legal  wrong.  If  any  man 
will  sue  thee  at  the  lu.w  is  a  needless  paraphrase,  made  more  enfeebling 
by  the  constant  use  of  will  in  modern  English  as  a  mere  auxiliary, 
whereas  it  is  here  an  independent  verb,  and  the  participial  construction 
definite  and  unconditional.  To  the  (one^  or  the  man)  wishing  to  sue 
thee^  or  to  go  to  laio  with  thee.  The  Greek  verb  primarily  means  to 
separate,  discern,  distinguish,  then  to  decide  or  exercise  discriminating 
judgment ;  then  to  try  judicially,  to  judge,  to  sentence.  The  middle 
voice,  which  here  occurs,  is  used  by  Homer  in  the  sense  of  fighting  or 
contending,  either  by  a  transfer  from  the  forum  to  the  field  of  battle, 
or,  as  the  lexicographers  prefer,  by  immediate  deduction  from  the  first 
sense  of  separating,  differing,  &c.  Willing  or  wishing.^  i.  e.  desiring, 
and  by  necessary  implication  here,  insisting  on  the  litigation,  the 
subject  or  occasion  of  which  is  then  brought  home  to  every  bosom  as 
involving  the  most  necessary  articles  of  dress  or  clothing,  which  con¬ 
sisted  in  the  east  of  two  chief  garments,  the  ytrcoz/  and  the  igcWtov, 
here  translated  coat  and  cloalc.^  but  more  exactly  corresponding  to  our 
shirt  and  coat.  The  form  and  shape  are  unimportant,  as  the  two  are 
only  put  together  to  express  the  general  idea  of  necessary  clothing. 
And  (wishing,  as  the  object  of  his  suit)  to  take  thy  inner  garment 
(shirt  or  tunic).  Let  him  have  is  Tyndalc’s  version,  less  exact  and 
expressive  than  the  Rhemish,  let  (it)  go  to  him.  The  Greek  verb  is 
the  one  employed  above  in  v.  24,  as  well  as  in  3,  d5.  4,  11.  20.  22, 
and  there  explained.  Thy  is  not  repeated  in  Greek,  but  the  first  (rrou) 
may  be  regarded  as  extending  to  both  nouns  (the  coat  and  cloak  of 
thee).  The  case  here  stated  would  have  more  effect  upon  a  Jewish 
audience,  because  the  upper  garment  was  expressly  exempted  in  the 
law  of  IMoses  from  the  claims  of  creditors  in  ordinar}'-  cases,  partly 
for  the  reason  that  the  poor  at  least  used  it  also  as  a  covering  at  night 
(Ex.  22,  26.  27).  The  idea  really  suggested  therefore,  would  be  that 
of  giving  up  even  what  the  law  reserved  for  the  use  of  the  unfortunate 


MATTHEW  5,40.41.42. 


155 


debtor.  Even  this  must  be  abandoned,  though  it  might  be  legally  re¬ 
tained,  if  its  retention  or  defence  would  be  a  gratitication  of  the  natural 
resentment  at  such  conduct,  on  the  ground  of  the  lex  talionis,  as  the 
Pharisees  and  Scribes  explained  it.  This  injunction  of  our  Lord  un¬ 
doubtedly  condemns  much  defensive  litigation,  which  appears  to  be 
prompted  by  a  simple  sense  of  justice,  but  is  really  vindictive  in  its 
origin  and  spirit. 

41.  And  whosoever  shall  compel  thee  to  go  a  mile,  go 
with  him  twain. 

A  third  specification  of  the  general  command  to  suffer  wrong 
rather  than  assert  right  in  a  spiteful  or  revengeful  spirit.  This  allu¬ 
sion  is  derived  from  an  ancient  Oriental  custom,  of  which  there  may 
have  been  some  recent  instance  known  to  our  Lord’s  hearers.  The 
usage  was  that  of  pressing  man  and  beast  into  the  public  service  for 
the  purpose  of  conveying  news  with  greater  speed.  This,  which  seems 
to  be  the  germ  or  origin  of  modern  posting,  in  the  wide  sense  of  the 
term  as  used  in  Europe,  is  ascribed  b}'’  Greek  historians  both  to  Cyrus 
and  Xerxes,  under  whom  there  seems  to  be  a  trace  of  its  existence  still 
preserved  in  Esther  8, 10.  14.  The  public  courieis.  or  bearers  of 
despatches,  who  possessed  this  power  of  impressment,  when  re¬ 
quired  to  furnish  the  relays  of  horses  and  of  horsemen,  were  called  by 
a  name  of  Persian  origin  (ayyapo6),  from  which  was  derived  in  later/- 
Greek  the  verb  here  used  (ayyapeuco)  in  the  sense  of  forcing  one  to  go 
upon  a  journey.  Shall  compel,  not  will,  as  in  v.  40,  because  here 
there  is  but  one  verb  in  the  future  tense.  The  arbitrary  will  express¬ 
ed  in  that  case  by  the  will  is  here  included  in  the  meaning  of  the  verb 
itself.  Mile,  the  Roman  mile  of  a  thousand  paces  (which  is  Wiclif’s 
version  here),  and  according  to  the  latest  authorities,  about  140  yards 
shorter  than  the  English.  The  important  point  in  this  case  is  the  pro¬ 
portion  between  one  and  two.  Rather  than  refuse,  in  an  angry  and 
vindictive  spirit,  to  go  one  mile  by  constraint,  go  two  and  make  the 
hardship  double.  Tieain,  an  old  form  for  tioo,  retained  in  all  the  Eng¬ 
lish  versions  here,  and  in  a  few  other  places.  (See  below,  on  19,  5.  6. 
27,  21.  51.) 

42.  Give  to  him  that  asketh  thee,  and  from  him  that 
would  borrow  of  thee  turn  not  thou  away. 

To  these  occasional  and  rarer  instances  of  hardship  or  annoyance, 
he  now  adds  one  of  less  violence,  but  more  intolerable  if  continued  or 
repeated  often.  The  precept  must  be  understood  with  the  same  quali¬ 
fication  as  the  others.  Rather  than  refuse  from  a  vindictive  motive,  or 
to  gratify  a  spirit  of  retaliation,  gwe  to  the  (one)  asking  thee.  This  may 
denote  free  gifts  as  distinguished  from  the  loan  referred  to  in  the  last 
clause,  as  the  latter  may  be  merely  an  expansion  of  the  other.  'The 
one  wishing,  willing,  perhaps  with  the  same  implication  of  persistency 
:  and  overbearing  urgency  as  in  v.  40,  Here  again,  the  change  of 


15C 


MATTHEW  5,42.43. 


usage  should  be  noted,  would  being  not  a  mere  auxiliary,  but  an  in¬ 
dependent  verb.  Borrow^  a  Greek  verb  meaning  to  lend,  but  in  the 
middle  voice,  to  have  lent  to  one,  to  receive  on  loan.  According  to 
the  lexicons,  it  always  means  in  classic  Greek  to  lend  on  interest,  the 
absolute  sense  (which  here  occurs)  belonging  only  to  the  Greek  of 
the  New  Testament.  But  a  trace  of  its  earlier  existence  may  be  found 
in  the  fact  that  Demosthenes  adds  on  interest  (eVi  tokols),  which  would 
be  superfluous  and  therefore  out  of  place  in  so  concise  a  writer,  if  the 
verb  itself  included  that  idea.  Turn  not  away,  in  Greek  a  passive, 
strictly  meaning,  de  not  turned  away,  but  according  to  the  best  gram¬ 
marians  used  in  the  middle  sense  of  turn  not  thyself  away.  The  pas¬ 
sive  in  such  cases  is  peculiarly  expressive,  having  nearly  the  same  force 
as  if  it  had  been  said,  ‘do  not  let  thyself  be  turned  away.’  (Compare 
(rcoSjyre,  Acts  2,  40.) 

43.  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  Thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbour,  and  hate  thine  enemy. 

The  last  particular  here  specified,  in  which  the  moral  standard  of 
Messiah’s  kingdom  was  to  be  far  higher  than  the  one  then  recognized 
among  the  Jews,  was  that  of  friendship  or  benovelence  to  others.  In 
this  case  the  distinction  is  clearer  than  in  any  of  the  others,  between 
the  requisition  of  the  laAV  and  its  perversion  by  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees.  Ye  have  heard  (from  these  your  spiritual  leaders)  that  it 
was  said  (through  Moses,  to  your  fathers),  thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh¬ 
bour,  an  abridged  form  of  the  precept  still  recorded  in  Lev.  19,  18, 
from  which  our  Lord  afterwards  derived  tlie  second  part  of  his  reply 
to  the  question,  which  was  the  great  commandment  of  the  law  (see  be¬ 
low,  in  22, 39);  As  it  was  not  his  intention  to  remind  them  of  this 
clause  exclusively,  and  as  it  would  at  once  suggest  the  rest  to  any  well 
instructed  Jewish  hearer  (sec  above,  on  4,  0),  it  will  aid  us  in  inter¬ 
preting  the  passage  now  before  us  to  complete  our  Lord’s  quotation 
and  transcribe  the  whole  verse  in  Leviticus,  “  Thou  shalt  not  avenge 
nor  bear  any  grudge  against  the  children  of  thy  people,  but  thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself ;  I  (am)  the  Lord.”  The  prohibition  of 
revengeful  grudges  in  the  first  clause  makes  the  connection  still  more 
close  and  obvious  between  this  part  of  Christ’s  discourse  and  that 
before  it.  It  may  even  lay  bare  the  association  of  ideas  which  occa¬ 
sioned  the  transition  in  his  thoughts  and  words  to  the  concluding 
topic  in  this  long  enumeration.  Here,  too,  as  in  the  case  immediately 
preceding  (see  above,  on  v.  38),  the  simple  reeital  of  the  law  in  its 
original  connection,  shows  at  once  the  source  of  the  perversion  which 
our  Lord  condemns.  In  its  letter  and  its  primary  design,  this  precept 
was  intended  to  promote  benevolent  aflections  among  the  chosen 
people,  or  from  one  Jew  to  another,  as  appears  from  the  specific 
j)hrase,  the  sons  (or  children)  of  thy  people.  This  specification  had  been 
always  open  to  abuse,  but  more  particularly  after  the  rise  of  Phari¬ 
saism,  even  in  its  earlier  and  purer  form,  which  was  that  of  an  exclu¬ 
sive  nationality  and  dread  of  all  assimilation  with  the  heathen  (see 


MATTHEW  5,43,44. 


157 


above,  on  3,  7).  Before  and  at  the  time  of  Christ  this  spirit  had 
become  one  of  fanatical  antipathy,  not  only  to  the  faith  and  worship, 
but  to  the  persons  of  all  Gentiles,  founded  on  a  plausible  though  false 
deduction  from  the  precept  of  the  law  just  quoted.  As  its  requisition 
of  benovelent  affections  is  expressly  limited  to  fellow  Jews  (“the 
children  of  thy  people  ”),  it  was  easy  for  the  Pharisees,  and  even  for 
the  Scribes  of  their  persuasion,  in  the  exposition  of  this  law,  to  argue 
from  its  silence  as  to  others  their  express  exclusion,  nay  to  make  a 
duty  and  a  virtue  of  regarding  them  with  positive  hostility,  as  enemies 
of  God  and  of  his  people.  This  perversion,  which  could  scarcely  be 
avoided  in  the  case  supposed,  or  rather  known  to  have  existed,  is  pre¬ 
cisely  the  one  indicated  in  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  before  us  {andj 
thou  shalt  hate  thine  enemy).  It  is  not  necessary  to  assume,  nor  even 
probable,  that  such  a  proposition,  in  its  revolting  harshness,  ever 
formed  a  part  of  their  religious  teaching.  It  is  sufficient  to  regard  it 
as  our  Lord’s  own  summary  expression  of  the  substance  and  spirit  of 
that  teaching,  or  the  practical  conclusion  to  which  their  less  revolting 
glosses  and  distinctions  tended :  ‘  You  have  heard  that  as  the  law 
commands  you  only  to  love  the  children  of  your  people,  you  are  of 
course  at  liberty,  if  not  in  some  sense  bound,  to  cherish  opposite  affec¬ 
tions  towards  all  others.’  Such  a  spirit  of  national  repugnance  could 
not  fail  in  its  turn  to  generate  analogous  antipathies  between  one  class 
and  another  even  of  the  chosen  people,  and  eventually  also  between 
man  and  man ;  so  that  the  Pharisaic  doctrine  finally  assumed  the 
character,  in  which  it  is  here  set  forth,  “thou  shaft  love  thy  neighbour 
and  hate  thine  enemy.”  The  word  translated  neighbour  properly 
means  near,  but  is  as  old  as  Homer  in  its  application  to  person.s,  and 
especially  to  those  with  whom  we  have  more  intimate  relation  than 
with  others,  whether  the  precise  connection  be  a  local,  a  domestic,  or  a 
national  one.  This  relative  and  wide  use  of  the  term  affords  occasion 
for  our  Saviour’s  beautiful  reply  to  the  question.  Who  is  my  neighbour  ? 
as  recorded  in  another  gospel,  with  immediate  reference  to  this  precept 
of  the  law  (Luke  10,  27.  29.  3G),  and  will  also  throw  some  light  upon 
his  teaching  in  the  present  instance. 


44.  But  I  say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies,  blesa 
them  that  curse  you,  do  good  to  them  that  hate  you,  and 
pray  for  them  which  despitefully  use  you,  and  persecute 
you. 

But  I  say  unto  you,  in  opposition  to  this  fiilse  and  wicked  corollary 
added  by  the  Pharisees  to  the  Mosaic  law  of  love.  Lore  your  enemies, 
not  only  national  but  personal,  piivate  as  well  as  public.  By  this 
wide  interpretation  of  the  law  all  pretext  for  invidious  exceptions  and 
distinctions  is  precluded.  But  is  not  this  an  extension  of  the  law  itself, 
as  well  as  a  correction  of  the  false  gloss  put  upon  it  7  Can  the  precept 
in  Leviticus  be  truly  said  to  mean  all  this,  without  a  violation  of  its 
very  terms,  which  so  particularly  name  the  children  of  thy  people,  as 


158 


MATTHEW  5,44. 

the  neighbours  to  be  loved  and  cherished  ?  This  is  an  important  ques¬ 
tion.  as  relating  to  the  last  ground  on  which  it  can  be  plausibly  main¬ 
tained,  that  our  Lord,  in  this  discourse,  is  not  merely  showing  the  true 
sense  but  supplying  the  deficiencies  of  the  law  itself  (see  above,  on  v. 
17).  It  may  be  answered  by  reverting  to  the  ground  and  purpose  of 
the  separation  between  Israel  and  the  other  nations,  which  was  not 
perpetual  but  temporary,  and  intended  not  to  aggrandize  the  chosen 
people,  but  to  make  them  instruments  of  good  to  the  whole  race.  This 
is  clear  from  the  patriarchal  promises ;  from  the  means  used  to  keep 
up  the  remembrance  of  their  oecumenical  relations  in  the  minds  of  the 
more  lavoured  race  ;  from  the  representative  character  assigned  to 
them,  as  being  not  so  much  the  church  of  God  as  a  peculiar  people  rep¬ 
resenting  it  5  and  from  the  continual  reproof  and  refutation  of  their 
narrow  [u’epossessions,  not  merely  in  the  New  Testament,  but  in  the 
Prophets,  and  the  law  itself.  The  virtues  w^hich  they  were  required 
to  practise,  then,  among  themselves,  were  exhibitions  on  a  small  scale 
of  the  duties  which  they  owed  to  all  alike,  and  not  the  right  side  of  a 
picture,  the  reverse  of  which  was  turned  to  others.  The  true  correla¬ 
tive  of  the  love  required  between  Jew  and  Jew,  was  not  contempt  or 
hatred  of  the  Gentiles,  but  a  still  more  comprehensive  love  to  them 
too.  bearing  the  same  proportion  to  the  first  that  national  or  social 
charities  sustain  to  the  more  intimate  afibetions  of  the  family.  The 
pious  Jew  was  not  required  to  love  the  Gentiles  as  he  loved  the  Jews, 
but  still  to  love  them,  not  to  hate  them  ;  and  the  least  degree  of  love  is 
the  negation  of  all  hatred.  The  bare  correction  of  this  error  would 
have  been  a  vast  advance  upon  the  Pharisaical  theory  and  practice  of 
benevolence.  But  Christ  goes  vastly  further  still,  and  shows  that  the 
Mosaic  (i.  e.  the  divinw)  law  of  love  extends  not  only  to  multitudes 
whom  they  considered  as  excluded  by  their  birth  or  nationality  with¬ 
out  regard  to  pei-sonal  demerit,  but  to  those  whose  personal  demerit 
was  the  greatest  possible,  not  only  against  God  but  towards  them¬ 
selves.  After  saying  generally,  love  your  enemies^  which  might  be 
negatively  understood  as  meaning  those  who  are  not  your  friends  by 
any  social,  national,  or  private  tie,  he  specifies  this  vague  term  by  add¬ 
ing  as  synonymous  expressions,  those  cursing  you  ....  those  hating 
you  ....  those  insulting  yaii  ....  those  persecuting  you.  This  cuts 
off  all  misapprehension  and  evasion  as  to  the  extent,  not  only  of  our 
Lord’s  own  requisition,  but  of  the  Mosaic  law,  as  he  expounds  it.  The 
same  end  is  secured  in  reference  to  the  positive  and  active  nature  of 
the  love  required,  by  coupling  with  each  hostile  act  (already  quoted)  a 
corresponding  act  of  friendship  or  benevolence.  Bless  those  cursing 
you,  do  good  to  those  hating  you,  and  pray  for  those  despitefully  using 
you.,  or  more  exactly,  insulting  or  abusing  you.  The  (Ireek  word 
always  has  specific  reference  to  speech  or  words,  and  originally  means 
to  threaten,  from  which  the  transition  is  an  easy  one  to  contumelious 
talk  as  the  expression  of  a  spiteful  scorn  in  general.  Besides  the 
parallel  passage  in  Luke  (6,  28),  it  occurs  only  once  again  in  the  New 
Testament  (I  Pet.  3, 16),  where  it  is  too  specifically  rendered,  falsely 


MATTHEW  5,44.45.46. 


159 


accuse.  It  seems  to  be  here  joined  with  persecute^  in  order  to  express 
the  two  ideas  of  hostile  speech  and  hostile  action.* 

45.  That  ye  may  be  the  children  of  your  Father 
which  is  in  heaven  :  for  he  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the 
evil  and  on  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  on 
the  unjust. 

The  true  law  of  benevolence  having  been  laid  down  in  all  its  length 
and  breadth,  and  in  contrast  with  the  narrow  Pharisaic  rule  and  prac¬ 
tice,  is  now  shown  to  be  reasonable  from  analogy.  The  appeal  is  a 
twofold  example,  that  of  God  and  man.  The  demonstrative  power  of 
the  first  rests  not  merely  on  the  general  principle  of  God’s  perfection 
and  authorit}^  as  the  standard  and  exemplar  of  all  excellence,  but  also 
on  the  filial  relation  borne  to  him  by  all  believers,  and  here  obviously 
assumed  by  Christ  as  necessarily  belonging  to  his  true  disciples.  As 
if  he  had  said,  ‘  In  coming  to  me,  you  come  to  the  Father,  not  mine 
merely  but  your  own ;  for  if  you  believe  in  me,  you  are  his  children, 
and  the  child  must  imitate  the  father  in  all  imitable  qualities  and  acts. 
But  he  does  not  confine  his  rain  and  sunshine  to  the  good  or  righteous, 
i.  e.  those  who  are  conformed  to  his  will,  but  gives  them  also  to  the 
wicked  and  unrighteous.’  The  implied  conclusion  is  that  we  are  not  to 
regulate  our  love  by  the  merit  of  the  object  but  extend  it  to  all.  From 
this  it  follows  that  the  love  here  meant  is  not  the  love  of  complacency, 
involving  moral  approbation,  but  the  love  of  benevolence,  involving 
only  a  desire  of  the  object’s  welfare.  Malceth  to  rise^  an  unavoidable 
periphrasis  of  one  Greek  verb  (amrf'XXet),  which  is  used  both  in  a 
transitive  and  intransitive  sense  (see  above,  on  4, 16,  and  below,  on 
13,  6),  the  former  of  which  is  applied  in  the  classics  to  the  growth  of 
plants,  the  rise  of  water,  and  the  shedding  forth  of  light.  Sendeth 
rain  (Tyndale,  his  rain),  on  the  other  hand,  might  be  more  simplyand 
exactly  rendered  rains  (or  raineth).  Evil  and  good.,  just  and  un¬ 
just,  are  not  be  carefully  distinguished,  but  regarded  as  synonymous 
descriptions  of  the  one  great  universal  contrast  which  exists  in  human 
character. 

46.  For  if  ye  love  them  wkicli  love  you,  what  reward 
have  ye  ?  do  not  even  the  publicans  the  same  ? 

The  other  analogy  is  drawn  from  human  conduct,  and  that  not  of  the 
best  but  rather  of  the  worst  men  in  the  hearers’ estiniation,  publicans 
and  Gentiles.  Even  these  could  feel  and  act  with  kindness  towards 
their  friends  and  nearest  relatives;  and  therefore  Christian  charity 
must  reach  further  and  rise  higher,  namely,  to  the  love  of  enemies,  be¬ 
fore  enjoined.  The  logical  connective  {for)  refers  back,  not  to  the 

*  The  textual  variations  in  tliis  verse  have  no  effect  upon  the  sense,  but  only 
on  the  fulness  of  expression. 


160 


MATTHEW  5,46.47. 


immediately  preceding  verse,  but  to  the  one  before  it.  W e  have  here  the 
reason,  not  for  God’s  impartial  gifts  to  all  his  creatures,  but  for  man’s 
imitation  of  it  as  required  in  v.  44.  Them  iDliich  love  you  is  in  Greek 
a  participial  construction  like  that  in  v.  44,  those  loving  you.  Reward^ 
not  merely  compensation  as  in  v.  12,  but  implying  merit  and  a  con¬ 
dign  retribution.  What  claim  to  extraordinary  approbation  and  to  the 
advantages  attending  it  ?  Have  ye,  more  exact  than  Tyndale’s  and  the 
Rhemish  version,  shall  ye  have,  which  supposes  the  reward  to  be 
wholly  future ;  whereas  the  reference  is  to  present  right  and  security 
in  the  sight  of  God.  Publicans,  whose  very  name  was  a  proverbial 
expression  for  the  want  of  character  and  standing  in  society.  This  ex- 
communication  of  a  whole  class  or  profession  arose  from  the  singular 
political  condition  of  the  Jews  at  this  time.  The  Romans,  to  whom 
they  had  been  virtually  subject  since  the  occupation  of  Jerusalem 
by  Pompey,  and  particularly  since  the  coronation  of  Herod  as  king  of 
the  Jews  by  order  of  the  senate,  with  their  usual  wise  poliejq  suflcred 
them  in  most  things  to  govern  themselves.  The  two  points  in  which 
their  domination  was  most  sensibly  felt  were  the  military  occupation 
of  the  country  and  the  oppressive  system  of  taxation.  This  branch  of 
the  imperial  revenue  was  farmed  out  to  certain  Roman  knights, 
and  by  them  to  several  gradations  of  subordinate  collectors,  each  of 
whom  was  required  to  pay  a  stated  sum  to  his  superior,  but  with  the 
privilege  of  raising  as  much  more  as  he  could  for  his  own  benefit.  This 
financial  system,  which  still  exists  in  some  oriental  countries,  must 
from  its  very  nature  be  oppressive,  by  offering  a  premium  for  extortion 
and  rapacity.  To  this  was  added  in  the  case  before  us  the  additional 
reproach  of  being  instruments  and  tools,  not  merely  of  a  foreign  des¬ 
potism,  but  of  a  gentile  or  heathen  power.  The  odium  thus  attached 
to  the  office  of  a  publican,  or  Roman  tax-gatherer,  prevented  any  Jews 
from  holding  it  except  those  of  the  most  equivocal  and  reckless  char¬ 
acter.  who,  being  thus  excluded,  by  their  very  occupation,  from  re¬ 
spectable  society,  were  naturally  thrown  into  that  of  wicked  and  dis¬ 
reputable  men.  Thus  a  business,  not  unlawful  in  itself,  and  only 
made  oppressive  by  the  cupidity  of  those  engaged  in  it,  came  by  degrees 
to  be  regarded  by  devout  Jews  as  intrinsically  evil,  and  gave  rise  to 
that  familiar  but  without  reference  to  these  facts  unintelligible  com*- 
bination.  “  publicans  and  sinners.”  To  do  no  more  than  such  men  did 
implied  a  very  debased  moral  standard,  or  at  least  a  very  narrow  view 
of  what  our  Lord  required  in  his  disciples.  The  two  interrogations 
in  this  verse  arc  much  more  pointed  than  a  simple  denial  that  they 
had  no  reward,  and  a  simple  affirmation  that  the  Publicans  did  like¬ 
wise. 

47  And  if  ye  salute  your  brethren  only,  what  do  ye 
more  (than  others)  ?  do  not  even  the  publicans  so  ? 

This  is  a  rhetorical  reiteration  of  the  last  verse  with  a  slight  change 
of  expression.  Instead  of  love,  we  have  salute  (or  greet),  as  one  of  its 
habitual  expressions.  Our  version  here  correctly  substitutes  a  literal 


V 


161 


MATTHEW  5,47.48. 

translation  of  the  Greek  verb  for  the  gloss  of  Tyndale  {if  ye  he 
friendly')  and  of  Ci'amner  {if  ye  malce  much  of  your  brethren).  Breth¬ 
ren.,  not  merely  brothers  in  the  strict  sense,  but  near  relatives.  (See 
above,  on  1,  25,  and  below,  on  12,46.  13,  55.)  What  more,  literally, 
what  abundant  (or  excessive),  i.  e.  what  beyond  the  ordinary  practice, 
even  of  the  worst  men.  The  original  expression  {ncpia-aov)  is  the  same 
as  that  in  v.  37.  Tyndale  and  his  followers,  who  there  translate  it 
more  than,  have  here  the  paraphrase  or  gloss,  what  singular  thing  do 
yef  Instead  of  Publicans  (TfXoovat),  the  Codex  Vaticanus  and  some 
others,  followed  by  the  latest  critics,  here  read  gentiles  or  heathen 
{i'^vLKoi),  which  not  only  varies  the  expression  without  varying  the 
sense,  but  anticipates  the  striking  combination  in  18,  17  below,  where 
an  excommunicated  brother  is  required  to  be  treated  as  a  heathen  and 
a  publican.  As  so  is  here  equivalent  to  the  same  in  the  preceding 
verse,  the  sense  is  not  affected  by  their  transposition  in  some  ancient 
copies  and  the  latest  critical  editions.  The  argument  contained  in  these 
two  verses  is,  that  the  benevolence  required  in  the  law,  as  expounded 
and  enforced  in  the  Messiah’s  kingdom,  must  be  something  more  than 
that  habitually  practised,  from  the  force  of  selfish  motives  or  mere 
natural  affection,  by  the  very  classes  whom  the  Jews  regarded  as  the 
most  abandoned  and  most  desperately  wicked. 

48.  Be  ye  therefore  perfect,  even  as  your  Father 
■which  is  in  heavdn  is  perfect. 

In  conclusion  of  his  argument,  if  such  it  may  be  called,  in  favour  of 
a  large  benevolence,  vastly'  transcending,  both  in  quantity  and  quality, 
the  natural,  conventional,  or  selfi.sh  kindness  practised  by  the  worst  of 
men,  our  Lord  reverts  to  the  divine  example,  previously  set  forth  in  v, 
45,  and  to  the  filial  relation  of  his  followers  to  God,  as  making  that 
example  an  authoritative  standard.  It  is  not,  however,  a  mere  repeti¬ 
tion  of  the  language  before  used,  but  a  generic  statement  of  the  prin¬ 
ciple  there  partially  applied  to  one  specific  case  of  human  conduct  and 
divine  administration.  All  that  was  there  said  was  that,  as  God  docs 
not  confine  his  providential  gifts  to  those  who  in  any  sense  deserve 
them,  so  his  people  need  not  be  afraid  of  sinning  if  they  love  their 
enemies,  repaying  their  most  hostile  enmity  with  acts  of  kindness. 
The  great  truth  there  implied  is  here  propounded  in  its  whole  extent 
and  simple  grandeur.  They  were  not  to  copy  the  imperfect  inodrls 
furnished  even  by  the  best  of  men,  much  less  those  furnished  by^  the 
worst,  but  the  perfect  model  set  before  them  by  their  heavenly'- Father, 
i.  e.  by  God,  not  as  an  absolute  sovereign  or  inexorable  judge,  but  in 
that  parental  character  which  he  sustains  to  all  the  true  disciples  of 
^  his  Son.  The  imperative  form  used  in  all  the  English  versions  {he  yc), 
though  it  gives  a  good  sense  and  may  be  defended  by  the  pas.sive  mean- 
„  ing  of  the  Hebrew  future  in  the  ten  commandments,  and  throughout 
3e-  the  law  of  Moses  (see  above  in  vs.  21.  27.  33.  43),  must  nevertheless 
yield  to  the  exact  form  of  the  Greek  verb  'which  is  future  (eafaSf), 
^  and  may  hero  be  taken  in  its  strict  sense  as  denoting  not  so  much 


162 


MATTHEW  5,48. 

what  should  or  must  as  simpl}^  that  which  is  to  be.  The  ideas  of  cer¬ 
tainty,  necessit}*,  and  moral  obligation,  may  be  all  implied,  but  they 
are  not  expressed ;  nor  would  they  here  be  so  appropriate  to  the  con¬ 
text  as  the  purpose  of  the  whole  discourse,  wdiich  is  not,  as  some 
imagine,  to  enact  laws  or  prescribe  rigid  rules  of  conduct,  but  to  set 
forth  the  true  nature  of  the  corning  kingdom,  and  especially  to  rectify 
the  false  impressions  which  prevailed  respecting  it,  even  among  many 
who  were  soon  to  enter  it  and  rise  to  liigh  distinction  in  it.  Having 
shown,  in  execution  of  this  purpose,  that  instead  of  lowering  the  stand¬ 
ard  of  morality  erected  by  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes  in  their  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  law,  he  should  enforce  it  in  a  far  more  comprehensive, 
spiritual,  stringent  sense,  and  having  urged  them  to  the  practice  of  an 
almost  superhuman  charity,  transcending  that  of  sinful  man,  and  re¬ 
sembling  that  of  God  himself ;  he  now  explains  this  paradoxical  and 
startling  requisition,  by  assuring  them  that  what  he  had  prescribed  was 
no  empirical  expedient  to  secure  a  special  end  in  some  extraordinary 
case,  but  the  organic  law  or  constitution  of  his  kingdom,  the  funda¬ 
mental  principle  of  Christian  ethics,  making  God  the  model  and  his 
will  the  rule,  and  suffering  even  the  imperfect  to  aim  only  at  perfec¬ 
tion.  Therefore^  because  all  human  models  arc  essentially  imperfect, 
and  unfit  to  be  copied  even  b}^  those  who  in  this  respect  resemble 
them.  Ye  are  to  Ije  (in  my  kingdom  and  my  service),  i.  e.  must  be  in 
your  aims  and  efforts  now,  and  shall  be  really  through  grace  hereafter, 
not  essentially  deficient  in  your  principles  and  motives,  as  the  best  of 
men  are  when  abandoned  to  themselves,  hni  perfect^  ov  complete,  want¬ 
ing  nothing  that  is  absolutely  necessary  to  your  ultimate  perfection, 
because  acting  on  the  same  principles,  and  aiming  at  the  same  ends,  as 
your  Father  in  heaven,  or  according  to  the  latest  text,  your  heavenly 
Father. 


CHAPTER  YL 

Havixg  set  forth  the  difference  between  the  standard  of  morality 
acknowdedged  by  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  and  that  to  be  erected  in 
the  kingdom  of  Messiah,  and  exemplified  this  difference  in  the  treat¬ 
ment  of  several  prevailing  sins,  our  Lord  proceeds,  in  this  division  of 
the  Sermon  on  the  IMount,  to  do  the  same  thing  with  respect  to  several 
religious  duties,  namely,  charity  or  almsgiving  (1—4),  secret  prayer 
(5-15),  and  private  fasting  (lG-18).  Assuming  the  necessit}^  of  all 
these  duties,  he  exposes  the  hypocrisy  and  ostentation  which  charac¬ 
terized  the  Pharisaical  performance  of  them,  and  exhorts  his  followers 
to  avoid  this  error  by  performing  them  exclusively  to  God  and  not  to 
man,  and  in  the  single  hope  of  a  divine  reward,  without  the  least  view 
to  rnei-e  secular  advantage.  This  advice  is  then  extended  to  the  whole 
course  of  life,  which  can  be  truly  happy  only  when  the  object  of  su¬ 
preme  affection  is  an  undivided  and  a  heavenly  one  (19-21).  This  is 


MATTHEW  6,1. 


163 


/ 


illustrated  by  an  analogy  derived  from  the  economy  of  human  sight 
(22-23),  and  by  another  from  domestic  service,  with  a  formal  application 
to  the  case  in  hand  (24).  Far  from  losing  by  this  undivided  consecra¬ 
tion.  they  would  gain  immunity  from  wasting  care  by  trusting  in  God’s 
1  constant  care  of  them,  which  is  established  by  two  arguments  of  opposite 
descriptions,  from  the  greater  to  the  less,  and  from  the  less  to  the 
greater.  He  who  gave  ns  life  and*  bodies  will  not  fail  to  supply  food 
and  raiment  (25),  and  he  who  provides  for  the  inferior  creation,  animal 
!  and  vegetable,  will  not  fail  to  do  the  same  for  man  (26-30).  Undue 
solicitude  is  not  only  useless  (27)  but  irreligious,  heathenish,  dishonour¬ 
ing  to  God  (31-32)  ;  whereas  by  seeking  first  to  do  his  will  and  to 
j  promote  his  glory,  these  inferior  favours  may  be  best  secured  (33). 
And  as  these  considerations  ought  to  banish  from  the  minds  of  Christ’s 
disciples  all  excessive  care  about  the  present,  they  ought  still  more  to 
I  prevent  it  in  relation  to  the  future,  which  instead  of  lessening  can  only 
j  multiply  the  evil  by  accumulation  (34). 

! 

1.  Take  heed  that  ye  do  not  your  alms  before  men,  to 
be  seen  of  them  :  otherwise  ye  have  no  reward  of  your 
Father  which  is  in  heaven. 

There  is  no  want  of  coherence  or  abrupt  transition  here,  but  an 
obvious  extension  of  the  previous  teachings  about  certain  sins  to  cer- 
■  tain  religious  duties,  highly  valued  by  the  Jews,  as  they  are  now  by 
the  Mahometans,  with  whom  they  constitute  almost  the  whole  exter¬ 
nal  part  of  their  religion.  The  connecting  thought  may  be  thus  sup¬ 
plied  :  ‘  such  is  the  difierence  between  the  treatment  of  these  sins  by 
me  and  by  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees ;  but  you  must  also  learn  to 
differ  from  them  in  the  performance  of  religious  duties.’  Tales  hced^  a 
Greek  verb  strictly  meaning  to  ai^ply,  i.  e.  to  hold  one  thing  to 
another,  and  with  a  corresponding  noun,  to  apply  the  mind,  to  attend  ; 
then  elliptically  even  when  the  noun  is  not  expressed,  to  take  heed,  to 
be  cautious.  As  the  reference  is  commonly  to  danger,  physical  or 
moral,  it  is  usually  rendered  in  this  Gospel  by  the  English  verb  be¬ 
ware  (7,  15.  10,  17.  16,  6.  11.  12),  and  elsewhere  by  take  heed  (Luke 
17,  3),  give  heed  (Acts  8,  6),  give  attendance  (1  Tim.  4,  13),  have 
regard  (Acts  18,  11),  in  all  which  versions  the  original  idea  of  apply¬ 
ing  the  mind  to  any  object  is  distinctly  traceable  ;  nor  is  it  wholly 
lost  in  1  Tim.  3,  8,  where  it  is  rendered,  given  to  (much  wine),  but 
really  means,  giving^  i.  e.  giving  one’s  attention,  or  one’s  self,  to  that 
indulgence.  Its  use  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse  suggests  at  once 
the  importance  of  the  caution  and  the  difficulty  of  observing  it.  It  can¬ 
not  be  denied  that  the  reference  to  alms  is  here  somewhat  abrupt,  and 
that  there  is  something  like  tautology  in  the  recurrence  of  the  same 
word  at  the  opening  of  the  next  verse.  Although  these  are  mere  rhe¬ 
torical  minutiae,  not  affecting  the  essential  meaning,  it  is  woidhy  of 
remark  that  they  are  both  removed  by  what  the  latest  critics  give  us 
as  tiie  true  text,  instead  of  aims  (J\erjixo(Tvvr]v)  reading  righteousneas 


164 


MATTHEW  6,1.2. 


{biKnioarvvrjv) ^  On  the  anthoritj  of  the  Vatican  and  Beza  manuscript??, 
the  oldest  Latin  versions,  and  some  Fathers.  This  external  testimony 
is  remarkably  contirmed  by  the  intei’nal  evidence,  i.  c.  by  the  improve¬ 
ment  in  the  sense,  or  at  least  in  the  symmetrical  structni'e  of  the  pas¬ 
sage,  which  then  opens  with  a  general  precept  as  to  ail  I'eligious  duties 
(v.  1),  and  afterwards  proceeds  to  alms-giving,  as  the  first  specitication 
(v.  2).  There  is  no  need  therefore,  of  making  the  two  terms  s\’nomy- 
mous,  as  in  the  later  Hebrew  usage.  It  is  altogether  better  to  give 
righteousness  its  full  generic  sense  of  right  doing,  or  conformity  to  the 
will  of  God,  with  special  reference  in  this  connection  to  religious  duties. 
(See  above,  on  3,  15.  5,  6.  10.  20.)  Your  righteousness,  that  which 
you  habitually  practise  and  acknowledge  as  incumbent  on  you.  That 
ye  do  not,  more  exactly,  not  to  do,  the  infinitive  depending  in  con¬ 
struction  on  the  verb  {tahe  heed)  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence. 
‘  Be  careful  not  to  practise  your  religious  duties  in  the  ^ight  (before 
the  face)  of  men,’  i.  e.  of  other  men,  but  not  without  a  sensible  anti¬ 
thesis  with  God,  as  mentioned  in  the  other  clause.  The  consistency 
of  this  charge  with  the  positive  command  in  5,  16,  is  saved  by  the 
difference  of  end  or  motive.  There  it  was  to  glorify  God  5  here  it  is, 
not  merely  to  be  seen  by  men,  but  to  be  gazed  at  as  a  show  or  spec¬ 
tacle,  the  Greek  verb  {^^a^i)vai)  being  that  from  which  come  theatre, 
theatrical,  &c.  (See  below,  on  11,  7.  22,  11.  23,  5.)  The  idea  of  delib¬ 
erate  intention,  as  distinguished  from  a  mere  fortuitous  result,  is  ex¬ 
pressed  precisely  as  in  5,  27,  by  a  preposition  and  an  article  prefixed 
to  the  infinitive  (^irpos  to  3ea3f]i/ni).  The  general  precept  then,  even 
as  to  external  duties,  is  that  although  men  may  see  them,  and  in  cer¬ 
tain  cases  ought  to  see  them  (see  above,  on  5,  IG),  they  are  never  to 
be  done  directly,  much  less  solely  or  supremely,  for  that  purpose. 
This  prohibition  equally  extends  to  the  religious  duties  subsequently 
mentioned,  and  by  parity  of  reason  to  all  others.  The  ground  or 
motive  is  assigned  in  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  before  us.  Other¬ 
wise  (the  older  English  versions  have  or  else),  literally,  hut  if  not, 
with  a  particle  annexed  (ei  be  grjye)  which  can  scarcely  be  expressed  in 
English,  but  is  used  in  Greek  to  qualify  or  limit  what  is  said,  and 
often  corresponds  very  nearly  to  our  phrase,  ett  least.  ‘  Take  heed  .  .  . 
or  at  least  if  you  do  not,’  &c.,  which  is  nearly  equivalent  to  sa3dng, 
‘take  heed  if  you  regard  3'our  own  true  interest,  as  well  as  duty.’ 

not  meritorious  or  condign  recompense,  as  in  5,  40,  but  simply 
compensation  or  reti'ibutive  advantage,  as  in  5,  12.  ‘If  you  do  not 
guard  against  this  formal  ostentation  in  religious  duties,  you  have  noth¬ 
ing  to  expect  from  them  in  the  way  of  a  divine  blessing.’  With  your 
Father,  i.  e.  laid  up,  in  reserve  for  you,  in  his  presence  or  his  purpose. 
The  idea  is  the  same  with  that  expressed  in  5,  12  by  the  phrase  in 
heaven.  The  {one,  i.  e.  the  Father)  in  the  heavens,  as  distinguished 
from  all  human  parents,  whether  natural  or  spiritual  (see  above,  on 
5,  16). 

2.  Therefore  when  thou  doest  (thine)  alms,  do  not 
sound  a  trumpet  before  thee,  as  the  hypocrites  do,  in  the 


MATTHEW  6,2. 


165 


synagogues,  and  in  the  streets,  that  they  may  have  glory 
of  men.  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  They  have  their  reward. 

The  negative  precept  as  to  alms  is  then  repeated  in  a  more  spe¬ 
cific  form.  Or  according  to  the  other  text  already  mentioned,  the  ge¬ 
neric  rule  relating  to  all  duties  is  now  specially  applied  to  one.  There¬ 
fore.  because  all  such  duties  must  be  done  to  God  and  not  to  man. 
IV hen  thou  doest^^  implying  that  it  would  be  done  and  must  be  done  of 
course,  provided  it  were  well  done.  Alms  is  itself  a  contraction,  techni¬ 
cally  called  a  corruption,  of  the  Greek  word  here  used  (^eXerjfioavvrj), 
and  of  which  we  have  a  more  direct  derivative  in  the  somewhat  uncouth 
adjective,  eleemosynary The  Greek  noun,  according  to  its  etymology, 
means  first  mercifulness^  then  its  exercise,  especially  in  the  relief  of 
want.  An  analogous  usage  is  that  of  charity  in  English,  as  denoting 
both  a  disposition  or  affection  of  the  mind  and  its  material  effect  or 
product.  The  pronoun  {thine  alms)  is  supplied  by  the  translator  from 
V.  4  below.  Tlie  translation  of  the  next  words  {cause  not  a  trumpet 
to  he  sounded)^  is  still  more  paraphrastic  than  the  version  in  the  text. 
Better,  because  more  exact,  than  either  would  be,  trumpet  not  before 
thee^  if  the  English  verb  {to  trumpet)  could  be  used  without  an  ex¬ 
pressed  object.  There  is  no  need  of  resorting  to  the  doubtful  and  im¬ 
probable  assumption  of  a  literal  trumpeting,  in  ancient  times  or  Orien¬ 
tal  countries,  either  by  the  beggars  or  their  benefactors  ;  much  less  to 
the  farfetched  and  unnatural  allusion  to  the  trumpet-shaped  money¬ 
boxes  in  the  temple-treasury,  and  to  the  ringing  of  the  coin  as  it  fell 
into  them  !  The  phrase  requires  no  elucidation  beyond  that  vi^hich 
it  receives  from  the  figurative  use  in  various  idioms  of  the  trumpet,  as 
a  loud  and  brawling  instrument,  to  represent  an  ostentatious  boastful 
exhibition  of  ourselves  or  others.  Before  thee  is  a  trait  derived  no 
doubt  from  actual  military  usage,  or  the  general  practice  of  trumpeters 
preceding  those  whom  they  announced  or  heralded ;  ‘  Do  not  give  alms, 
as  a  general  goes  to  battle,  or  a  king  before  his  people,  with  a  trum¬ 
peter  to  lead  the  wa}'-  and  arouse  attention.’  In  the  last  clause  this 
negative  command  is  made  still  more  specific  by  presenting,  as  the 
thing  to  be  avoided,  the  habitual  practice  of  a  certain  class,  apparently 
referred  to  as  well  known  to  all  the  hearers.  The  hypocrites^  a  Greek 
noun,  the  verbal  root  of  which  means  properly  to  answer  or  respond, 
e.  g.  as  an  oracle,  or  in  dramatic  dialogue,  from  which  last  usage  the 
derivative  acquires  the  specific  sense  of  actor,  one  who  acts  a  part,  to 
which  the  later  Hellenistic  usage  f  added  the  moral  application  to  dis¬ 
semblers,  false  pretenders,  which  is  the  only  meaning  of  the  word  in  mod¬ 
ern  languages.  It  is  here  applied  by  implication,  as  it  elsewhere  is  ex¬ 
pressly  (see  below,  on  23, 13-20)  to  the  whole  class  of  Pharisees  and 
beribes,  with  whoso  false  morality  and  spurious  religion,  our  Lord, 

*  The  s  in  alms  is  therefore  radical,  and  not  necessarily  the  plural  termina- 
lion  ;  so  that  the  phrase  ati  alms,  employed  by  our  translators  (Acts  3,  3),  is  per¬ 
fectly  grammatical.  Sec  Trench  on  Revision,  p,  43. 

+  See  the  Septuagint  version  of  Job  34, 3u.  3G,  13,  where  it  is  used  to  repre¬ 
sent  the  Hebrew  . 


■(y.  •r'  ■ 


166 


MATTHEW  6,2. 


throughont  this  passage  (from  5, 20  to  6, 18),  is  contrasting  the  morality 
and  piety  which  were  to  be  required  and  promoted  in  the  kingdom  of 
Messiah.  Do^  i.  e.  habitually,  as  a  constant  and  notorious  practice.  He  is 
evidently  not  communicating  new  and  unknown  facts,  but  fearlessly 
appealing  to  his  hearers  as  the  wdtnesses  of  what  he  says,  q.  d.  ‘  as  you 
well  know  that  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes  do.’  In  the  synagogues^ 
or  meetings  for  religious  worship  (see  above,  on  4,  23),  which  have 
always  been  the  chosen  scenes  for  the  display  of  formal  ostentatious 
piety.  And  in  the  streets,  a  Greek  word  which  in  the  early  classics 
has  a  meaning  altogether  different  (that  of  violent  or  rushing  motion), 
but  in  later  and  especially  in  Hellenistic  usage,  has  obviously  acquired 
the  meaning  here  attached  to  it  by  all  translators.  From  a  supposed 
antithesis  to  hroad  icays  (nhaTeLas)  in  one  passage  (Luke  14,  21),  it  is 
there  translated  lanes,  and  commonly  explained  to  mean  narrow  and 
confined  streets.  But  the  contrast  even  there  is  doubtful,  as  the 
terms  may  be  substantially  synonymous,  and  does  not  occur  either  here 
or  in  Acts  12,  10  j  while  in  Acts  9,11,  the  only  other  instance  of 
its  use  in  the  New  Testament,  the  implication  is  the  other  way.  Nor 
is  it  probable  that  these  ambitious  formalists,  who  sought  the  honour 
that  proceeds  from  men  and  not  from  God  (John  5, 44),  would  seek 
it  in  the  lanes  and  alleys  of  the  Holy  City,  as  distinguished  from  its 
wider  streets  and  open  places.  As  connected  l^ere  with  synagogues,  the 
word  more  readily  suggests  the  thought  of  crowded  thoroughfares,  if 
not  as  its  specific  import,  yet  as  comprehended  in  its  wider  sense  of 
streets  in  general.  This  ostentatious  charity  was  not  fortuitous  or 
unsought,  but  deliberately  purposed.  Have  glory  is  in  Greek  a  passive 
form  of  the  verb  translated  glorify  in  5, 16,  that  they  may  loe  glorified 
hy  men,  i.  e.  admired,  applauded,  flattered,  not  in  private  but  in  public. 
AVith  significant  allusion  to  his  own  words  in  the  close  of  the  preceding 
verse  {ye  have  no  reivard,  &c.),  he  affirms  the  contrary  of  these  theatrical 
religionists,  and  with  a  solemn  formula  suggestive  of  some  deep  and  hidden 
meaning.  Verily  {amen,  as  in  5,  18.  26)  I  say  unto  you,  and  with  author¬ 
ity,  as  claiming  your  attention  and  belief  of  something  paradoxical  yet 
true,  and  of  the  highest  moment.  They  have,  not  the  simple  verb  com¬ 
monly  so  rendered  (as  in  v.  1),  but  a  form  compounded  with  the  preposi¬ 
tion  {drro)  from,  away  from,  and  therefore  frequently  denoting  distance 
(15,  8.  Luke  7,  6.  15,  20.  24,  13),  but  in  other  cases  giving  an  intensive 
force  to  the  essential  meaning  of  the  verb,  by  suggesting  the  accessory 
idea  of  completeness,  fulness  (see  Luke  6,  24.  Phil.  4,  18.  Philem.  15). 
According  to  this  second  usage,  it  may  here  mean  that  they  have  already, 
or  already  full,  without  the  prospect  of  increase  hereafter.  Their  re¬ 
ward,  i.  e.  all  that  they  can  claim  or  hope  for,  namely,  the  applause  of 
men.  As  this  is  all  that  the}^  have  sought  in  their  devotions,  it  is  all 
they  are  to  have,  in  the  wa}^  of  benefit  or  personal  advantage.  In  this 
verse,  as  in  5,  23.29.36.  39,  there  is  a  sudden  change  from  the  plural 
to  the  singular,  as  if  to  give  the  exhortation  more  point  by  addressing 
it  to  one  and  not  to  many. 


167 


MATTHEW  6,  3.  4. 

3.  But  when  thou  doest  alms,  let  not  thy  left  hand 
know  what  thy  right  hand  doeth. 

This  verse  presents,  in  contrast  with  the  Pharisaic  mode  of  giving 
alms,  the  Christian  manner  of  performing  the  same  dut3\  The  per¬ 
sonal  contrast  is  more  prominent  in  Greek,  because  the  pronoun  stands 
at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence.  When  thou  doest^  or  retaining  the 
original  construction,  which  is  that  of  the  genitive  absolute,  thou  doing 
alms^  or  practising  the  grace  of  charity.  The  last  clause  seems  to  be 
proverbial  and  expressive  of  the  utmost  secrec}^,  so  close  that  one  part 
of  the  body  may  be  said  not  to  know  the  movements  of  another.  This 
is  still  more  striking  when  affirmed  of  parts  so  much  alike  and  near 
together  as  the  double  members.  The  force  and  beauty  of  this  clause 
are  greatly  weakened  by  supposing  a  continued  allusion  to  the  trum¬ 
pet.  held  in  one  hand  while  thfe  other  gives  the  alms,  or  even  to  the 
more  familiar  act  of  taking  money  with  the  right  hand  from  the  purse 
held  in  the  left,  or  vice  versa,  or  to  that  of  pouring  small  change  from 
the  one  into  the  other.  The  vety  strength  of  these  expressions  might 
have  taught  interpreters  that  they  are  not  a  formal  rule  of  duty,  but  a 
hyperbolical  negation  of  all  morbid  appetite  for  vain  publicity  and  popu¬ 
lar  applause  in  the  performance  of  religious  duties.  ‘  Ear  from  trum¬ 
peting  your  charities,  or  doing  them  in  order  to  be  seen  of  men,  let  the 
very  members  of  your  body  keep  the  secret  from  each  other.’  The 
idea  that  the  right  hand  means  the  man  himself,  and  the  left  hand 
those  who  are  his  nearest  and  most  intimate  associates,  is  not  only 
gratuitous,  but  unsupported  either  by  Sci  iptural  or  classical  usage. 
Such  a  mode  of  treating  proverbs,  with  their  strong  and  often  para¬ 
doxical  expressions,  would  bo  quite  destructive  of  their  point  and  power, 
as  well  as  offensive  to  a  truly  refined  taste. 

4.  That  thine  alms  may  be  in  secret  :  and  thy  Father 
v/hich  seeth  in  secret,  himself  shall  reward  thee  openly. 

To  those  who  had  been  brought  up  under  a  formal,  ostentatious 
system,  like  that  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  it  might  have  seemed 
that  the  foregoing  precept  nullified  the  main  design  of  charitable  giv¬ 
ing,  namely,  that  of  exhibiting  a  charitable  spirit.  But  our  Lord  here 
teaches  that  this  loss  of  notoriety  is  not  an  incidental  evil,  but  an  ob¬ 
ject  to  be  aimed  at.  So  that^  expressing  not  merely  the  result,  but  the 
purpo.se  of  the  action.  IViy  alms,  as  distinguished  from  the  alms  of 
the  hypocrites  denounced  in  v.  2.  In  secret,  literally,  in  the  hidden 
{g)lace),  again  suggesting  not  an  accidental  but  an  intentional  conceal¬ 
ment.  The  remainder  of  the  verse  assigns  the  motive  or  inducement 
for  this  sacrifice  of  notoriety  and  human  praise.  The  principle  involved 

is,  that  as  all  religious  duty  is  performed  to  God,  and  is  dependent  on  his 
bles.sing  for  its  good  effects,  it  matters  comparatively  little  whether  man 
is  cognizant  of  it  or  not.  It  is  enough  if  God  beholds  it  and  will  bless 

it.  Thy  father,  the  {one)  seeing  in  secret,  no  less  certainly  and  clearly 
than  in  public,  being  independent  of  man’s  efforts  either  to  disclose  or 


168 


MATTHEW  6,4.5. 

hide.  This  is  set  forth  in  the  Old  Testament  as  a  necessary  incident 
of  God’s  omniscience  (Ps.  139,  12).  Himself  (omitted  in  the  older 
versions),  without  reference  to  human  icnowledge  or  opinion,  will  re¬ 
ward^  or  rather  idUI  repay  thee  (so  tlie  Rhemish  Bible),  will  make 
good  whatever  loss  may  seem  to  be  sustained  by  thus  relinquishing  the 
praise  of  man.  Ojperdy^  in  public,  corresponding  to  in  secret  in  the 
other  clause.  This  seems  to  circumscribe  the  promise  too  much,  and 
may  therefore  have  been  added  to  the  text  by  ancient  copyists,  as  it  is 
not  found  in  the  Vatican  and  Beza  codices,  and  is  omitted  by  the  latest 
critics. 

5.  And  when  thou*  prayest,  thou  shalt  not  be  as  the 
hypocrites  (are)  :  for  they  love  to  pray  standing  in  the 
synagogues,  and  in  the  corners  of  the  streets,  that  they 
may  be  seen  of  men.  Verily,  I  say  unto  you.  They  have 
their  reward. 

The  same  rule  is  now  applied  to  pra5"er,  which  from  its  very  nature 
is  addressed  to  God  not  man,  so  that  whoever  acts  as  if  the  latter  were 
the  case,  thereby  proves  himself  a  hypocrite,  a  mere  performer,  one  who 
acts  the  part  of  a  true  worshipper  of  God,  but  in  his  heart  is  courting 
the  applause  of  man.  Such  an  example,  only  too  familiar  to  his  hear¬ 
ers,  Christ  exhorts  his  followers  to  shun.  ^Vhen  thou  prayest,  assum¬ 
ing  that  they  would  t>r^iy  ^ind  must  pray,  not  merely  in  obedience  to  a 
positive  command,  nor  even  as  a  necessary  means  of  spiritual  growth, 
but  as  a  vital  function  of  the  new  life,  which  can  no  more  be  dispensed 
with  than  the  body  can  live  without  breath  or  without  blood.  Thou 
shalt  not  he,  or  the  future  may  be  taken  as  in  5,  48,  thou  art  not  to 
he,  this  is  not  what  I  look  for  and  require  in  the  subjects  of  my  king¬ 
dom,  for  the  reason  given  in  the  next  clause.  Because  (on)  they  love, 
implying  not  an  error  of  judgment  but  a  perverse  will  and  a  corrupt 
state  of  aflection.  They  delighted  in  theatrical  and  ostentatious  wor¬ 
ship,  which  to  them  was  the  essence  of  devotion,  so  that  secret  prayer 
was  none  at  all  and  therefore  probably  neglected  altogether,  as  it  often 
is  where  ritual  religion  reigns.  The  synagogues  are  not  named  as  im¬ 
proper  places  of  devotion,  for  which  end  they  were  established,  but 
simply  as  the  places  where  these  hypocrites  exhibited  their  formal  wor¬ 
ship.  The  corners  of  the  streets  were  in  themselves  unsuited  to  devo¬ 
tion,  as  the  noisiest  and  most  crowded  parts  of  every  city,  so  that  the 
very  choice  of  such  a  place  for  prayer  betrayed  a  want  of  the  right 
spirit  and  a  disposition  to  worship  man  rather  than  God.  The  word 
here  rendered  streets  is  not  the  one  employed  in  verse  2,  but  the  one 
referred  to  in  the  note  there  as  denoting  strictl}’’  hroad  (icays),  wide 
streets.  These  are  evidently  mentioned  as  the  most  frequented,  which 
confirms  our  previous  conclusion  that  the  other  word  does  not  mean 
lanes  or  alleys,  which  the  hypocrites  would  scarcely  have  selected  for 
their  alms,  while  they  prayed  at  the  corners  of  the  widest  thorough¬ 
fares.  Standing  is  no  part  of  the  hypocritical  display,  which  would 


MATTHEW  6,  5.0,7. 


169 


rather  have  affected  genuflexion  in  the  public  highway,  but  is  simply 
mentioned  as  the  customary  posture  of  the  Jews  in  prayer,  ascribed  by 
our  Lord  elsewhere,  not  only  to  the  boasting  Pharisee,  but  also  to  the 
broken-hearted  Publican  (Luke  18, 11-13).  That^  not  merely  so  that, 
but  in  order  that,  to  the  intent  that,  they  may  he  seen  o/’(more  exactly 
may  appear  to)  men.  The  use  of  this  verb  may  be  intended  to  suggest 
that  they  appear  to  pray  when  in  truth  they  are  only  acting.  Verily 
I  say ^  the  same  solemn  formula  as  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  topic, 
in  the  last  clause  of  v.  2,  and  with  the  same  return  to  the  plural  pro¬ 
noun  {hyuv),  though  the  singular  is  used  before  and  after. 

6.  But  thou,  when  thou  prayest,  enter  into  thy  closet, 
and  when  thou  hast  shut  thy  door,  pray  to  thy  Father 
which  is  in  secret ;  and  thy  Father,  which  seeth  in  secret, 
shall  reward  thee  openly. 

Here,  as  in  reference  to  alms,  the  description  of  the  practice  of  the 
hypocrites  introduces  a  prescription  of  the  method  to  be  used  by 
Christ’s  disciple.  But  ihou^  in  opposition  to  the  ostentatious  pra3"ers 
which  he  had  just  described.  Closet^  an  English  word  denoting  pro¬ 
perly  a  room  within  a  room,  and  here  used  to  translate  a  Greek  one 
meaning  store-room^  the  essential  idea  being  that  of  an  innermost  and 
most  retired  apartment.  Thy  closet^  that  belonging  to  thyself  and  sub¬ 
ject  to  thy  own  control.  Having  shut  the  door,  not  only  closed  but 
fastened  it,  v/hich  is  the  proper  meaning  of  the  Greek  verb.  No  one 
perhaps  has  ever  deemed  that  the  external  acts  here  mentioned  are  es¬ 
sential  to  acceptable  devotion,  or  that  the  Lord’s  Prayer  cannot  law¬ 
fully"  bo  used  in  any  place  but  a  closet,  or  even  there  with  open  doors. 
All  feel  that  these  are  merely  strong  expressions  for  the  strictest  pri¬ 
vacy^,  although  consistency  requires  the  same  strict  interpretation  here 
that  some  would  put  upon  the  strong  terms  of  other  precepts  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  jMount,  e.  g.  5,  34.  39.  The  promise  in  the  last  clause 
is  precisely  similar  to  that  in  v.  4,  with  the  same  doubt  overhanging 
the  last  words  as  a  possible  interpolation.  These  expressions  limit  the 
whole  passage  to  personal  or  private  prayer  and  make  it  wholly  inap¬ 
plicable  to  common  prayer  or  public  worship,  which  is  a  distinct  and 
independent  duty,  resting  on  express  divine  command.  It  may  how¬ 
ever  be  a  question,  whether  we  are  not  here  forbidden  to  confound  the 
two  kinds  of  devotion  by  performing  private  prayer  in  public  places  so 
as  to  attract  attention  and  be  ‘‘  seen  of  men.” 

7.  But  when  ye  pray,  use  not  vain  repetitions,  as  the 
heathen  (do)  :  for  they  think  that  they  shall  be  heard  for 
their  much  speaking. 

Having  taught  precisely  the  same  lesson  with  respect  to  alms  and 
prayer,  to  wit,  that  they  must  bo  performed  to  God  and  not  to  man, 

8 


170 


MATTHEW  6.7. 


and,  therefore,  unless  otherwise  required,  in  private  not  in  public ;  our 
Lord  goes  further  with  respect  to  prayer,  and  adds  a  warning  against 
heathenish  as  well  as  pharisaical  abuses.  In  this  additional  instruc¬ 
tion,  he  resumes  the  plural  form,  which  had  been  dropped  at  the  close 
of  the  first  verse,  excepting  only  the  repeated  formula.  Amen  (or 
'eerily)  I  say  unto  you  (vs.  2.  5).  This  remarkable  interchange  of 
number  without  visible  necessity,  would  seem  to  point  to  one  of 
two  conclusions ;  either  that  the  difference  of  number  in  the  second 
person  is  itself  unmeaning,  and  that  the  later  Greeks  had  begun  to 
use  the  singular  and  plural  indiscrimmatel}^  as  we  now  do ;  or  that 
what  follows  has  respect  to  common  not  to  private  prayer.  The  latter 
view  is  favoured  by  the  circumstance,  ■which  always  has  to  some  ap¬ 
peared  surprising,  that  the  plural  form  is  used  throughout  the  Lord’s 
Prayer  (vs.  9-13),  ■while  in  the  subsequent  directions  as  to  fasting  (vs. 
16-18;,  both  are  used  successively.  But  when  ye  'pray  might  also  be 
translated,  praying  moreover^  (5^),  i.  e.  in  addition  to  the  previous 
warning  against  ostentation  and  formality.  Use  'not  'rain  repetitions 
is  a  paraphrase  and  gloss  but  not  a  version,  giving  probably  the  sense 
but  not  the  form  of  the  original,  consisting  of  a  single  word,  a  verb  un¬ 
known  to  classic  Greek  and  variously  derived,  the  older  writers  tracing 
it  to  Lattus.  a  Cyrenian  king  and  stammerer,  mentioned  by  Herodo¬ 
tus  ;  the  moderns  making  it  what  the  grammarians  call  an  onomato- 
poetic  word,  i.  e.  formed  in  imitation  of  the  natural  sound,  like  babble^ 
which  is  here  used  by  Tyndale  and  his  followers.  This  is  expressly 
represented  as  a  heathen  practice,  of  which  two  remarkable  examples 
are  preserved  in  Scripture  ;  that  of  the  priests  of  Baal,  in  Elijah’s 
time,  who  “called  on  the  name  of  Baal  from  morning  even  until  noon, 
saying.  Oh  Baal,  liear  us  !”  (1  Kings  18,26);  and  that  of  the  wor¬ 
shippers  of  Artemis  or  Dian  at  Ephesus,  in  Paul’s  time,  who  “all  with 
one  voice,  about  the  space  of  two  hours,  cried  out,  Great  is  Diana  of 
the  Ephesians  ”  (Acts  19,  34).  The  hea/thens^  or  gentiles^  not  the  noun 
which  is  commonly  so  rendered  and  which  properly  means  na¬ 

tions  (see  above,  on  4, 15),  but  an  adjective  derived  from  it  and  strictly 
meaning  national^  but  absolutely  used  in  the  same  sense  as  the  primi¬ 
tive  noun,  or  possibly  with  more  explicit  reference  to  individuals.  (See 
above,  on  5,  47,  where  the  latest  critics  substitute  it  for  the  common 
reading,  publicans).  The  last  clause  gives  the  origin  or  motive  of  this 
heathen  practice.  For  they  think  (are  of  opinion)  that  in  (i.  e.  in  the 
use  or  in  consideration  of)  their  much  speaking  (or  loquacit}^),  in  Greek 
a  single  but  compound  word  (rroXuXoyid,  polylog}").  They  will  be  heard., 
or  listened  to,  a  compound  verb,  applied  especially  to  audience  in  prayer 
and  implying  a  favourable  answer.  (See  Luke  1, 13.  Acts  10,  31.  Hcb. 
5,  7,  but  comjiare  1  Cor.  14,  21.)  This  notion  is  but  one  form  of  the 
wide-spread  heathen  error,  which  has  also  found  its  way  into  the 
Christian  world,  that  religion,  and  especially  that  prayer  or  worship  is 
rather  a  magical  charm  than  a  rational  or  reasonable  service  (Rom.  12, 
1),  and  that  as  the  opus  operatum  has  intrinsic  efficacy,  its  effect  will  bear 
proportion  to  the  quantity,  and  hence  the  value  of  mere  repetition.  It 
has  often  been  remarked  that  in  corrupted  Christian  churches  one  of 


MATTHEW  6,  7.  8.  9. 


171 


the  earliest  and  worst  perversions  of  the  truth  is  the  adoption  of  the 
very  error,  which  our  Lord  here  describes  as  heathenish,  and  in  rela¬ 
tion  to  the  very  prayer  here  given  to  prevent  it. 

8.  Be  not  ye  therefore  like  unto  them  :  for  yonr  Father 
knoweth  what  things  ye  have  need  of  before  ye  ask  him. 

Therefore^  because  the  practice  is  thus  heathenish,  and  rests  upon 
an  ethnic  superstition.  Be  not  like  them  is  in  Greek  still  stronger 
from  the  passive  form  and  meaning  of  the  verb,  he  not  likened  (or 
assimilated)  io  them,  i.  e.  by  your  own  act,  or  by  voluntarily  following 
their  example.*  The  last  clause  gives  a  still  deeper  reason  for  the 
vain  repetitions  of  the  heathen,  which  is  at  the  same  time  a  more 
cogent  reason  why  the  Christian  cannot  practise  them,  to  wit,  because 
they  rest  upon  a  grovelling  and  contracted  view  of  the  divine  perfee 
tions,  an  idea  that  the  wants  of  men  can  only  be  made  known  to  God 
by  constant  iteration.  The  disciple  must  not,  therefore,  do  as  they 
do,  for  he  has  not  even  their  excuse  of  ignorance.  Your  father^  not 
an  empty  form  of  speech,  but  intended  (as  in  5.  IG.  45.  48.  6,  1.  4.  G) 
to  remind  them  of  the  filial  relation  which,  as  Christ’s  disciples, 
they  sustained  to  God,  and  which  is  here  peculiarly  appropriate 
in  speaking  of  their  wants  and  his  ability  and  willingness  to  help 
them.  This  relation  was  familiar  to  the  saints  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment.  “Like  as  a  father  pitieth  his  children,  so  the  Lord  pitieth 
them  that  fear  him  ”  (Ps.  103,  13).  Before  ye  ask  liim^  or  before  your 
asking  him,  so  that  if  pra3  er  were  intended  to  inform  him  of  our 
wants,  it  would  be  altogether  useless  and  absurd  ;  how'  much  more 
the  notion,  that  he  needs  not  only  to  be  told,  but  to  be  often  told,  of 
man’s  necessities.  The  true  use  and  effect  of  prayer,  though  fully  ex¬ 
plained  elsewhere,  it  was  no  part  of  our  Lord’s  design  to  set  forth 
here,  but  only  to  den}’-  that  it  liad  any  such  design  as  that  whick  lay 
at  the  foundation  of  the  heathenish  battology. 

9.  After  this  manner  therefore  pray  ye  :  Our  Father 
wnich  art  in  heaven.  Hallowed  he  thy  name. 

Not  contented  with  the  negative  injunction  which  precedes,  our 
Lord  provides  his  hearers  with  a  positive  preservative  against  the  vain 
repetitions  of  the  heathen,  by  giving  them  a  specimen  of  brief,  simple, 
comprehensive  prayer,  adapted  in  its  form  to  their  actual  position  on 
the  threshold  of  the  new  dispensation,  and  therefore  containing  no 
direct  allusion  to  himself  or  his  peculiar  work,  yet  so  constructed  as 
to  furnish  for  perpetual  use  a  framework  into  which  all  lawful  prayers 
might  readily  be  fitted,  or  a  model  upon  which  they  might  be  newdy 
fashioned.  But  the  primary  design  of  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  as  it  is  tra- 

*  For  another  application  of  the  same  verb  in  our  Lord’s  parabolical  diction, 
gee  below,  on  7,  24.  11,  16.  13,  24.  18,  23.  22,  2.  26,  1. 


172 


MATTHEW  6,9.10. 


ditionally  called,  was  to  show  the  disciples,  by  example  no  less  than 
by  precept,  how  the  ethnic  battology  might  be  avoided.  Therefore^ 
because  you  will  not  be  permitted  to  use  vain  repetitions.  After  this 
manner  is  Tyndale’s  paraphrastic  version  of  the  single  Greek  word 
meaning  thus  or  so,  and  here  referring,  not,  as  it  sometimes  does,  to 
what  precedes  (c.  g.  5, 16.  19),  but  wholly  to  what  follows.  Pray  yo, 
with  stress  upon  the  pronoun,  which  is  not  required  in  Greek  to  indi¬ 
cate  the  person,  and  must  therefore  be  regai-ded  as  emphatic.  Ye,  my 
followers  and  disciples,  as  distinguished  from  the  ignorant  and  super¬ 
stitious  heathen.  That  this  is  not  a  requisition  of  punctilious  adher¬ 
ence  to  the  lorm,  much  less  of  its  exclusive  use,  is  clear  from  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  two  equally  authoritative  forms  (see  Luke  11,  2-4),  a  circum¬ 
stance  which  has  occasioned  much  embarrassment  to  scrupulous  litur- 
gists.  Our  Father,  the  (one)  in  the  hearens,  a  description  repeatedly 
employed  by  Christ  before  in  this  discourse,  and  now  put  into  the 
mouths  of  his  disciples,  as  an  explicit  recognition  of  their  filial  relation 
to  God,  not  only  as  their  maker  and  their  providential  benefactor,  but  as 
the  Father  of  our  Lord  himself,  through  whom  they  are  adopted  into  a 
more  intimate  and  spiritual  sonship,  which  is  here  by  implication  repre¬ 
sented  as  their  only  warrant  for  approaching  him.  Halloioed,  sanctified, 
made  holy,  i.  e.  treated  as  such,  recognized  as  sacred,  reverenced  and  there¬ 
by  glorified,  a  corresponding  use  of  which  verb  may  be  seen  above  in 
5,  16.  Name  is  not  to  be  diluted  or  expLined  awajq  as  meaning  every 
thing  by  which  God  is  made  known  to  his  creatin  es,  but  to  be  pri¬ 
marily  taken  in  its  proper  sense  of  title,  appellation,  ivith  particular 
allusion  to  the  name  Jehovah,  by  which  he  was  distinguished  from  all 
false  gods  and  described  not  only  as  a  self-existent  and  eternal  being 
(which  that  name  denotes),  but  also  as  the  God  who  was  in  covenant 
with  Israel,  the  God  of  revelation  and  the  God  of  grace,  or  in  New 
Testament  language,  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
(2  Cor.  11,  31).  Thus  understood,  the  name  of  God  can  be  hallowed 
onl)6  by  his  reverent  and  believing  recognition  as  the  Saviour,  no  less 
than  the  maker,  judge,  and  ruler  of  the  world.  It  is  one  of  the  most 
prominent  and  striking  features  of  this  model-prayer,  that  it  begins 
W'ith  God’s  own  glory,  as  the  great  end  to  be  sought,  with  the  neces¬ 
sary  means  of  its  promotion,  and  then,  as  something  secondary  or 
subordinate,  asks  those  things  which  relate  to  the  petitioner  himself. 
This  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  an  accidental  circumstance,  but  as  a 
practical  lesson  with  respect  to  the  comparative  importance  of  divine 
and  human  inteiests,  and  to  their  relative  position  in  our  prayers,  as 
the  expression  of  our  wishes  and  our  governing  affections. 

10.  Thy  kingdom  come.  Thy  will  he  done  in  earth, 
as  (it  is)  in  heaven. 

Thy  Idngdom,  that  of  the  Messiah,  which  was  now  about  to  bo 
erected.  This  expression  shows  that  the  Lord’s  Prayer  was  oilginally 
designed  and  suited  for  the  actual  condition  of  affairs,  before  the 
church  was  formally  reorganized  and  the  written  revelation  of  divine 


173 


MATTHEW  6,10.11. 

truth  closed ;  so  that  whatever  light  may  he  reflected  upon  its  lan¬ 
guage  from  events  of  later  date,  we  must  not  lose  sight  of  its  historical 
occasion  and  its  primary  sense,  as  understood  by  those  to  whom  it 
was  lirst  given.  Gomc^  into  existence,  into  view,  as  something  intro¬ 
duced  ah  extra^  as  descending  from  above.  This  petition  virtually 
comprehends  all  the  ulterior  effects  of  the  Messiah’s  advent,  and  may 
be  legitimate!}^  used  by  us  with  special  reference  to  these,  provided 
that  in  formally  interpreting  the  prayer  in  its  historical  connection, 
we  distinguish  what  has  thus  been  added  to  it  fi  om  its  simple  meaning 
as  originally  uttered.  There  is  less  difficulty  as-  to  this  point  in  the 
third  petition,  which  is  couched  in  universal  terms,  no  more  restidcted 
then  than  now,  and  having  no  specific  reference,  even  in  expression,  to 
a  temporary  state  of  things.  Thy  a  liellenistic  noun  derived 
from  a  classical  Greek  verb  of  frequent  use  and  in  conformity  to  clas¬ 
sical  analogy  and  usage  as  to  termination.  In  tliis  connection  it  of 
cour.'^e  means  neither  the  faculty  nor  exercise  of  will,  but  its  objective 
product,  that  which  is  willed,  as  embodied  in  the  law,  or  made  known 
through  a  revelation.  Be  done^  a  passive  fm  in,  refen  ing  more  directly 
to  the  agency  of  man  than  the  original  (-yei^r/Si^rco),  which  is  also  pas¬ 
sive  but  derived  not  from  the  active  verb  to  do,  but  from  a  neuter 
verb  (yivonni)  originally  meaning  to  become,  or  to  begin  to  be,  and  so 
to  happen,  come  to  pass,  in  which  sense  it  is  very  common  but  is 
variously  rendered  (see  above,  on  1,  22.  4,  3.  5,  18.  45).  The  passive 
form  adds  to  the  idea  of  occurring,  happening,  that  of  its  being  brought 
about  by  the  agency  of  other  beings,  although  not  so  strongly  or  dis¬ 
tinctly  as  our  English  passive  {done'),  which  however  is  substantially 
correct.  The  recognition  of  God’s  name  and  the  erection  of  God’s 
kingdom,  although  not  identical,  are  certainly  coincident  with  the  ful¬ 
filment  of  his  will.  In  earth  as  {it  is)  in  heaven  is  the  sense  but  not 
the  form  of  the  original,  in  which  the  order  is  reversed,  the  model 
being  placed  first  and  the  copy  afterwards,  as  in  heaven,  also  iifon 
earth.  As  the  reference  is  evidentl}'’  not  to  mere  physical  results,  but 
also  if  not  chiefly  to  the  moral  accomplishment  of  the  divine  will, 
heaven  and  earth  may  be  explained  as  meaning  the  abode  of  angels 
and  of  men  respectively,  as  by  angels,  so  by  men.  The  as  may  be 
understood  as  expressing  similarity  in  kind  and  in  completeness. 
‘  Let  thy  will  be  done  as  cheerfull}^  and  fully  in  this  lower  world  as  in 
the  upper.’ 

11.  Give  US  this  day  our  daily  bread. 

Here  begins  the  second  part  of  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  relating  to  the 
wants  of  the  petitioners,  which,  though  subordinated  to  the  glory  and 
the  sovereignty  of  God,  are  not  in  conflict  with  them,  but  iucluded  in 
them,  and  are  now  allowed  to  occupy  the  brief  space  which  remains  of 
this  divine  epitome.  The  first  prayer,  under  this  head,  is  for  bodily 
subsistence,  represented,  as  it  often  is,  by  food,  and  this  again  by 
bread,  the  staff  of  life,  and  the  main  staple  of  subsistence  among  all  hut 
the  most  degraded  nations.  The  epithet  prefixed  to  it  is  one  of  the 


174 


MATTHEW  6,11.12. 


most  doubtful  and  disputed  words  in  Scripture.  Of  the  various  mean¬ 
ings  which  have  been  attached  to  it,  interpreters  are  niainly  divided 
betvv^een  two,  both  which  are  very  ancient,  and  both  founded  on  the 
etymology.  The  first  supposes  the  original  expression  (fVtoiioioi/),  to 
be  made  up  of  a  preposition  (eV/)  and  a  noun  {ovala)  denoting  essence 
or  substance,  and  the  whole  phrase  to  mean  that  which  is  required  for 
support.  The  objection  to  this  explanation,  M'hich  affords  a  very  good 
sense,  and  agrees  well  with  the  context,  lies  not  in  the  form  of  the 
compound,  i^liich  is  justified  by  usage,  but  in  the  sense  ascribed  to  the 
compounded  noun  (ouo-fa),  which  properly  means  essence  or  substance, 
not  subsistence.  The  other  explanation  derives  the  word  from  a  par¬ 
ticiple  (eVtoCcro)  coming,  coming  on,  an  elliptical  expression  for  the 
coming  or  ensuing  day  {rjiJ-epa  emovaa).  The  objection  to  this  is  the 
apparent  incongruit}''  of  asking  for  to-morrow’s  bread  to-day.  The 
Vulgate  cuts  the  knot  by  copying  the  form  of  the  original  (pane7n  su- 
persubstantialein).  and  the  Khemish  Bible  follows  it  as  usual  {give  us 
to-day  our  supersubstantial  bread).  Apart  from  this  unmeaning 
imitation,  there  is  little  choice  between  the  two  interpretations,  each 
of  which  affords  a  good  sense  and  appropriate  in  this  connection,  nay, 
a  sense  which  would  have  been  suggested  by  the  context  if  the  doubt¬ 
ful  word  had  been  omitted.  The  bread  for  which  we  pray  is  of  course 
that  which  supports  us,  and  of  which  we  stand  in  daily  need.  The 
prayer  for  spiritual  nourishment  may  either  be  considered  as  included 
in  the  wide  term  bread.^  or  as  suggested  by  an  obvious  association  and 
analogy,  which  furnishes  a  natural  transition  to  the  prayer  of  the  next 
verse. 


12.  And  forgive  ns  our  debts,  as  we  forgive  our 
debtors. 

This  petition  has  respect  to  the  greatest  and  most  urgent  of  all 
wants,  the  forgiveness  of  sin.  And  remit  to  the  same  verb  that 
occurs  above  in  4, 40,  in  the  sense  of  let  go.,  here  applied  by  a  natural 
figure  to  the  remission  of  the  claims  of  justice  upon  an  offender.  Our 
debts,  another  natural  expression  for  moral  delinquency  or  breach  of 
obligation,  though  the  Greek  word,  in  the  only  other  place  where  it 
occurs  (Rom.  4,  4),  is  no  less  naturally  used  to  signify  the  obligation 
itself.  The  last  clause  is  not  conditional  but  comparative,  explaining 
the  remission  asked  as  just  the  same  with  that  habitually  practised 
in  the  case  of  human  debtors.  This  supposes  the  word  debtors  to  have 
here  its  strict  commercial  sense,  and  the  reference  to  mutual  forgiveness 
of  offences  generally  to  be  first  made  in  v.  14.  But  as  that  purports  to 
be  an  explanation  of  something  previously  said,  which  can  only  be  the 
cause  before  us,  most  interpreters  take  debtors  in  a  sense  analogous  to 
that  of  debts,  to  wit.  offenders  or  transgressors.  This  may  seem  to 
make  mutual  forgiveness  a  condition  of  divine  forgiveness  ;  but  it  nec¬ 
essarily  means  no  more  than  that  those  who  ask  for  pardon  must  be 
ready  to  bestow  it. 


175 


MATTHEW  6,13. 

13.  And  lead  us  not  into  temptation,  but  deliver  us 
from  evil.  For  thine  is  the  kingdom,  and  the  power,  and 
the  glory,  for  ever.  Amen. 

The  sixth  petition  is  for  preservation  and  deliverance  from  future 
sin  and  irs  effects.  TemiJtation  means  originally  trial,  but  in  usage 
more  specifically  moral  tiial  or  a  test  of  cliaracter,  especially  by  giv¬ 
ing  men  the  opportunity  of  choice  between  sin  and  obedience.  A  still 
stronger  sense,  predominant  in  modern  usage,  is  that  of  direct  solicita¬ 
tion  to  evil.  In  this  sense,  God  is  said  to  tempt  no  man  (James  1,  13), 
whde  in  the  others,  it  is  expressly  predicated  of  him  (Gen.  22,  1). 
The  word  here  cannot  mean  mere  trials,  in  the  sense  of  troubles  and 
afflictions,  not  even  considered  as  tests  of  faith,  but  must  include  the 
opportunity  of  sinning  and  the  peril  of  it,  as  an  evil  to  be  deprecated 
and  if  possible  escaped.  Lead  us.,  not  merely  as  the  sense  of  letting 
us  be  led  by  others,  but  in  that  of  providentially  involving  us  in  cir¬ 
cumstances  which  afford  us  opportunities  and  motives  to  transgress, 
witliout  coercing  us  to  do  so.  But.,  not  a  separate  petition,  but  an 
antithetical  division  of  the  same,  and  as  such  necessary  to  complete  it, 
the  two  parts  interpreting  each  other.  If  temptation  licre  means  only 
trial  in  the  lower  sense  of  trouble  and  affliction,  then  the  evil  of  the 
last  clause  must  be  natural  evil  or  distress.  But  as  temptation  has 
respect  to  sin  as  well  as  suffering,  evil  must  at  least  include  that  of  a 
moral  nature,  whether  we  take  it  as  an  abstract  or  a  concrete  term, 
evil  in  general,  or  the  evil  {^one),  considered  as  the  author  of  sin  and 
as  the  tempter  of  mankind,  which  last  idea  agrees  well  with  the  prayer 
against  temptation  in  the  other  clause.  Deliver.,  rescue,  save  by  draw¬ 
ing  to  thyself,  a  beautiful  and  most  appropriate  idea,  which  the  Greek 
verb  expresses  in  the  usage  of  the  classics.  For  assigns  the  ground  of 
the  whole  prayer,  or  of  its  being  addressed  to  God.  ‘  We  ask  all  this 
of  thee  because.’  &c.  Thine,  belonging  to  thee,  as  thy  right, 
and  as  thy  actual  possession.  The  Mngdom,  the  right  to  reign  and 
actual  dominion ;  hence  the  pra3^er,  ‘  thy  kingdom  come.’  The 
jpower,  the  ability  to  answer  these  petitions  and  to  grant  these 
gifts,  implying  absolute  omnipotence.  Glory,  the  acknowledgment  or 
recognition  of  inherent  excellence,  the  thing  prayed  for  in  the  first 
petition,  which  is  here  justified  by  this  ascription  of  it  to  the  Father  as 
his  right  and  his  prerogative.  Forever,  literally,  to  the  ages,  in  Greek 
a  word  which  projoerly  denotes  duration,  sometimes  definite,  as  nn 
age,  a  lifetime,  or  a  dispensation,  but  when  limited  by  nothing  in  the 
context,  indefinite  and  even  infinite  duration.  Amen,  the  Hebrew 
word  which  occurs  so  often  at  the  beginning  of  a  sentence  and  is  then 
translated  verily  (see  above,  on  5, 18.  26.  6,  2.  5),  but  here  used  as  a 
particle  of  assent  or  concurrence,  often  found  at  the  close  of  prayers 
and  other  forms  of  a  religious  kind  when  uttered  by  one  or  inoi-e  per¬ 
sons  in  the  name  of  others.*  This  doxology  is  wanting  in  some  an- 

*  Num.  5,22.  Deut.  27,15.  1  Kings  1,  8G.  1  Chron.  16,  36.  Ps.  106,  48.  Jer. 
23,  6.  Matt.  6, 13.  1  Cor.  14,16.  Rev.  5, 14.  22,  20. 


176 


MATTHEW  6,14.15.16. 


cient  codices  (especially  the  Vatican  and  Beza),  and  omitted  in  quota^ 
tion  by  some  ancient  writers,  which  has  led  the  modern  critics  to  re¬ 
gard  it  as  an  addition  from  some  old  church  liturgy.  Its  great  antiq¬ 
uity,  however,  and  its  constant  use  for  ages,  make  it  safer  to  retain  it 
till  some  light  is  thrown  upon  the  four  centuries,  or  more,  which  in¬ 
tervene  between  the  date  of  this  gospel  and  the  oldest  extant  manu¬ 
script. 

14.  For,  if  ye  forgive  men  their  trespasses,  your 
heavenly  Father  will  also  forgive  you  * 

15.  But,  if  ye  forgive  not  men  their  trespasses,  neither 
will  your  Father  forgive  your  trespasses. 

The  next  two  verses,  as  already  stated,  purport  to  give  a  reason 
for  something  in  the  previous  context,  which  can  only  be  the  last 
clause  of  v.  12.  As  if  he  had  said,  ‘  In  asking  for  forgiveness,  you  must 
stand  prepared  to  exercise  it  also,  for  unless  you  are,  3^11  cannot  be 
forgiven,  not  because  the  one  is  the  condition  of  the  other,  but  because 
the  two  must  go  together,  and  the  absence  of  the  one  proves  the  ab¬ 
sence  of  the  other.’  The  verb  four  times  repeated  here  is  the  same 
with  that  in  v.  12 ;  but  instead  of  the  word  deMs^  another  figure  is 
emploj'ed,  that  of  a  fall  or  false  step,  rendered  in  the  English  versions, 
tresjjass^  and  intended  to  express  the  same  idea,  that  of  sin,  which  may 
be  considered  either  as  a  debt  due  to  the  divine  justice,  or  as  a  lapse 
from  the  straight  course  of  moral  rectitude.  The  fulness  and  precision 
with  which  the  alternative  is  here  presented  may  appear  superfluous, 
but  adds  to  the  solemnity  of  the  assurance,  and  would  no  doubt 
strengthen  the  impression  on  the  minds  of  the  original  hearers.  In 
this,  as  in  the  whole  preceding  context,  God  is  still  presented  in  his 
fatherly  relation  to  all  true  believers ;  as  if  to  intimate  that  even  that 
relation,  tender  as  it  is,  would  give  no  indulgence  to  an  unforgiving 
spirit. 

16.  Moreover,  when  ye  fast,  be  not  as  the  hypocrites, 
of  a  sad  countenance  :  for  they  disfigure  their  faces,  that 
they  may  appear  unto  men  to  fast.  Verily,  I  say  unto 
you.  They  have  their  reward. 

The  contrast  between  formalism  and  genuine  religion  is  now  car¬ 
ried  out  in  reference  to  a  third  great  dut}^,  that  of  fasting,  the  con¬ 
tinued  exercise  of  which,  like  that  of  charity  and  prayer,  is  here  as¬ 
sumed,  without  distinguishing  between  the  true  and  false  mode  of  per¬ 
forming  it,  a  subject  treated  by  our  Saviour  elsewhere.  (See  below,  on 
9, 14.  15.)  The  plural  form,  resumed  in  the  preceding  verses,  is  con¬ 
tinued  through  the  one  before  us,  after  which  it  again  gives  place  to 
the  singular  precisely  as  in  vs.  2  and  6  above.  Here  too,  as  there. 


1 


MATTHE^Y  6,16.17.18.  177 

the  practice  of  the  hypocrites  is  first  described,  with  an  injunction  to 
avoid- it.  Be  not^  or  more  exactly,  become  not^  the  Greek  word  being 
not  the  simple  verb  of  existence  (as  in  v.  5),  but  the  one  explained 
above  in  v.  10,  and  employed  here  to  suggest  the  idea  of  a  change  from 
their  ordinary  look  and  manner.  Of  a  sad  countenance  {QcnQvzi  W\- 
ble,  looh  not  sour)^  in  Gi’eek  a  single  word,  denoting  angry,  sullen,  or 
morose,  not  merely  in  feeling  but  in  aspect,  as  the  derivation  of  the 
term  implies.  This  allusion  to  the  habits  of  the  Pharisees,  though 
probably  intelligible  of  itself  to  most  of  our  Lord’s  hearers,  is  explained 
by  the  addition  of  a  positive  description.  Fo7\  I  say  like  the  hypo¬ 
crites,  because,  &c.  Disfigure^  literally,  cause  to  disappear  or  vanish, 
either  by  changing  the  appearance,  as  in  this  case,  or  by  destroying,  as 
in  vs.  19.  2i>.  Appear  to  men  to  fast  is  neither  the  construction  nor 
the  sense  of  the  original,  or  is  at  least  ambiguous,  as  it  may  mean  that 
they  would  seem  to  fast  wlien  they  do  not,  whereas  the  meaning  of 
the  Greek  is  that  they  may  appear  to  (or  as  the  same  verb  is  trans¬ 
lated  in  V.  5  above,  be  seen  of  i.  e.  by)  men  {to  be')  fasting.  The  fault 
here  charged  is  not  that  of  a  false  pretence,  but  that  of  ostentation. 
They  did  fast,  and  they  took  care  that  it  should  be  known  by  their 
austere  and  mortified  appearance.  The  last  clause  is  the  same  as  in 
vs.  2.  5,  the  emphatic  repetition  giving  to  this  part  of  the  discourse  a 
rhythmical  or  measured  structure,  suited  not  only  to  impress  the 
hearers  at  the  time,  but  also  to  engrave  it  on  the  memory. 

17.  But  thou,  when  thou  fastest,  anoint  thy  head, 
and  wash  thy  faee  ; 

18.  That  thou  appear  not  unto  men,  to  fast,  hut  unto 
thy  Father,  which  is  in  secret  :  and  thy  Father,  which 
seeth  ill  secret,  shall  reward  thee  openly. 

We  have  here  the  usual  antithe.sis  or  contrast  (as  in  vs.  2.  6)  be¬ 
tween  Pharisaical  and  Christian  practice,  with  the  usual  transition  to 
the  singular  number.  But.^  in  opposition  to  this  hateful  ostentation, 
thou.^  my  individual  disciple,  not  only  as  opposed  to  the  hypocritical 
formalist  just  described,  but  as  distinguished  from  the  aggregate  body 
of  believers.  When  thou  fastest  litei-ally,/hs^i/?y,  at  the  time  or  in 
the  act  of  Listing.  There  are  two  ways  of  interpreting  the  last  clause, 
both  of  which  are  perfectly  grammatical.  The  first  and  probably  the 
common  one  is  founded  on  the  fact  that  fragrant  unguents  were  a  fa¬ 
vourite  luxury  at  ancient  feasts,  and  that  anointing  is  a  frecpicnt  figure 
in  the  Scriptures  for  rejoicing.  (See  for  example  Ps.  45,  7.  Isai.  61,  3, 
where  the  “oil  of  gladness”  and  the  “oil  of  joy”  are  identical  in  He¬ 
brew.)  In  accordance  with  this  usage  the  command  bcfoie  us  is  to 
shun  the  sanctimonious  ostentation  of  the  Pharisees  by  going  to  the 
opposite  extreme  ;  instead  of  looking  sad  or  sour,  appearing  to  ho  more 
than  usually  gay  and  cheerful.  The  obvious  objection  to  this  is,  that 
it  prescribes  a  course  of  conduct  inconsistent  with  that  state  of  mind, 


178 


MATTHEW  6,18.19.20. 

of  wliich  religious  fasting  is  the  index  and  the  counterpart,  as  stated 
by  our  Lord  himself  upon  a  subsequent  occasion.  (See  below,  on  9, 
14. 15.)  To  require  external  mirth  and  gaiety  of  men  who  are  suffer¬ 
ing  the  pangs  of  spiritual  grief,  would  be  a  mocker}"  unworthy  of  our 
blessed  Master,  and  without  a  parallel  in  his  teachings  elsewhere.  But 
besides  this  incongruity  between  the  inward  state  supposed  and  the 
outward  acts  enjoined,  the  requisition,  thus  explained,  is  one  of  positive 
deception,  which  is  still  more  inconceivable.  To  let  men  see  that  they 
were  fasting  was  hypocrisy  in  those  who  did  it  j  how  much  more  to 
seem  to  be  rejoicing  when  they  were  in  fact  distressed.  Tiiese  objec¬ 
tions  do  not  lie  against  the  other  explanation,  which  supposes  washing 
and  anointing  to  be  here  not  extraordinary  festive  usages,  but  ordinary 
acts  of  cleanliness  and  neatness,  and  the  requisition  to  be  simply  to 
appear  as  usual,  instead  of  that  neglect  or  positive  disfigurement,  which 
told  to  all  around  that  the  religionist  was  ki  a  state  of  spiritual  disci¬ 
pline  or  conflict.  Even  in  this  case  there  would  be  concealment;  but 
concealment  is  not  falsehood  ;  nor  are  we  bound  by  any  principle  of 
morals  or  religion  to  disclose  our  secret  exercises  to  the  view  of  others. 
All  this,  however,  presupposes  that  the  fasting  here  intended,  like  the 
prayer  in  v.  6,  is  a  personal  and  private  duty,  without  any  reference  to 
public  services  of  that  kind  to  which  we  may  be  called  in  company 
with  others.  This  presumption,  founded  on  the  context  and  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  V.  17,  becomes  a  certainty  in  that  which  follows,  where  the 
same  reason  for  consenting  to  be  unseen  by  the  eye  of  man  is  given 
with  respect  to  fasting,  that  was  previously  given  with  respect  to  alms 
and  prayer  in  vs.  4.  6. 

19.  Lar  not  up  for  yourselves  treasures  upon  earth, 
where  moth  and  rust  doth  corrupt,  and  where  thieves 
break  through  and  steal : 

20.  But  lay  up  for  yourselves  treasures  in  heaven, 
where  neither  moth  nor  rust  doth  corrupt,  and  where 
thieves  do  not  break  through  nor  steal. 

There  is  no  more  incoherence  or  abruptness  here  than  in  5,  17 
above,  though  both  transitions  have  been  so  described.  In  either  case, 
the  nexus  and  association  of  ideas,  if  not  obvious  and  patent  to  the 
superficial  reader,  may  be  readily  detected,  and,  when  once  pointed 
out,  seems  natural  and  easy.  The  great  principle  propounded  in  the 
foregoing  context,  as  the  law  which  ought  to  govern  our  religious 
duties,  is,  that  they  are  not  perfoimed  to  man,  but  to  God,  and  that 
he  alone  can  recompense,  or  make  them  fruitful.  But  this,  though 
originally  introduced  to  show  how  certain  duties  ought  to  be  per¬ 
formed,  admits  of  a  much  wider  application.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  funda¬ 
mental  principle  of  all  religion,  and  the  secret  of  all  happiness  and 
comfort,  even  in  the  present  life.  To  show  this,  is  the  drift  of  the 


MATTHEW  6,  19.  20. 


179 


discourse  in  the  remainder  of  this  chapter,  the  principle  being  first  laid 
down  in  vs.  19-21,  and  then  elucidated  and  applied  in  vs.  22-34.  The 
connection,  then,  is  this,  that  as  almsgiving,  prayer,  and  fasting,  must, 
in  order  to  have  any  value,  or  accomplish  any  good,  be  performed  as 
duties  which  we  owe  to  God,  and  in  reliance  on  his  blessing,  so  the 
same  is  true  of  every  thing  in  life,  and  of  the  whole  course  of  life  itself, 
the  entire  security  and  happiness  of  which  depend  upon  our  doing  all 
for  God,  and  in  dependence  upon  him  exclusively.  This  is  strikingly 
and  beautifully  set  forth  in  the  verse  before  us,  under  the  figure  of 
amassing  wealth,  i.  e.  providing  for  our  future  welfare.  (See  the  same 
idea  carried  out  in  one  of  our  Lord’s  parables,  preserved  by  Luke,  12, 
16-21.)  Lay  not  up  treasures^  is  in  Greek  more  pointed  and  express¬ 
ive,  because  the  verb  and  noun  are  kindred  forms,  store  not  aicay 
stores^  or,  retaining  the  derivative  equivalent  in  English,  treasure  not 
up  treasures^  as  the  verb  is  actually  rendered  elsewhere  (Rom.  2,  5), 
and  by  Wiclif  here.  Upon  earthy  not  merely  of  an  earthly  nature, 
but  dependent  on  this  present  life,  and  terminating  with  it.  (Compare 
Paul’s  analogous  expression,  worldly  lusts,  Tit.  2,  12.)  Divested  of 
its  figurative  dress,  the  precept  is,  not  to  let  our  future  happiness 
depend  upon  an}'-  thing  belonging  merely  to  the  earth,  or  to  the  pres¬ 
ent  life.  The  reason  given  in  the  next  clause  may  be  stated  in  the 
same  way  to  be  this,  that  such  provision  for  the  future  shares  in  the 
precarious  uncertainty  and  brief  duration  of  the  sphere  from  which  it 
is  derived,  and  to  which  it  is  restricted  by  its  very  nature.  The  figu¬ 
rative  dress  with  which  this  reason  is  invested,  has  respect  to  the  main 
figure  in  the  other  clause.  Treasures  of  money  and  of  clothing,  almost 
equally  valued  in  the  ancient  East,  whose  flowing  garments,  not  ex¬ 
posed  to  the  vicissitudes  of  fashion,  were  even  transmitted  by  inherit¬ 
ance,  are  liable  to  be  destroyed  by  rust  and  moths,  respectivel3q  or 
secretly  abstracted  by  the  thief  and  robber.  The  word  translated 
rust,  according  to  its  etymology,  means  eating,  and  is  used  metonymi¬ 
cal  ly,  both  in  Classical  and  Hellenistic  writeis,  to  denote  what  is 
eaten.  (John  4,  32.  G,  27.  55.)  Here  it  may  mean  corrosion,  and 
particularly  that  of  metals,  though  the  old  Greek  translator,  Aquila, 
applies  it  to  the  moth,  in  Isa.  50,  9.  (Compare  with  this  clause  “James 
5,  2.  3.)  Corrupt,  the  word  translated  disfigure  in  v.  16,  and  originally 
meaning  to  remove  from  sight,  or  cause  to  disappear,  as  in  Jas.  4,  14, 
but  continually  used  in  the  best  writers,  by  a  kind  of  euphemism,  for 
destruction.  Thus,  Thucydides  applies  it  to  the  razing  of  a  house,  and 
the  erasure  of  a  writing ;  Herodotus  and  Xenophon  to  the  secret  exe¬ 
cution  of  state  prisoners ;  with  which  may  be  compared  the  English 
phrases,  to  despatch,  to  make  away  with,  and  the  Greek,  to  lead  away, 
as  used  in  Acts,  12, 19.  Tyndale’s  word  {corrupt),  retained  by  all  the 
later  English  versions,  is  not  only  contrary  to  usage,  but  suggests  to 
the  modern  reader  the  incongruous  idea  of  putrefaction.  Here  again 
the  oldest  English  version  is  the  best  (Wiclif:  distrieth — destroyeth). 
Breah  literally,  dig  through  (Wiclif:  delren  out),\\\i\\  proba¬ 

ble  allusion  to  the  mud  walls  and  the  unburnt  brick  often  used  in 
eastern  houses.  Thieves^  in  old  English,  like  the  corresponding  Greek 


180 


MATTHEW  6,20.21. 

word,  has  a  wider  meaning  than  the  one  which  we  attach  to  it,  includ¬ 
ing  ail  who  lawlessly  deprive  men  of  their  property,  by  force  or  fraud, 
including  what  we  commonly  call  robbery.  (See  below  on  21,  13. 
26,  55.  27,  38,  where  the  same  word  is  employed  to  represent  a  very 
different  Greek  one.)  The  meaning  of  the  clause  is,  that  the  usual 
forms  of  human  wealth  are  liable  to  loss,  both  from  natural  and 
human  depredation. — V.  20  is  the  converse  of  v.  19.  written  with  a 
solemn  repetition  of  its  terms,  like  that  already  noticed  in  v.  15,  and 
intended  to  produce  the  same  effect.  The  point  of  variation,  upon 
which  the  contrast  turns,  is  the  phrase,  in  heaven^  corresponding  to 
on  earth,  and  meaning  just  the  opposite,  to  wit,  beyond  the  sphere  of 
this  world  and  of  this  life,  in  the  presence  of  God,  and  in  his  gracious 
purpose.  (See  above,  on  5,  11.)  Provision  thus  made  for  the  future, 
is  beyond  the  reach  of  change  or  loss,  the  necessary  incidents  of 
earthly  good  and  secular  advantages. 

21.  For  where  your  treasure  is,  there  will  your  heart 
he  also. 

This  verse  gives  a  still  deeper  insight  into  the  great  principle  or  law 
of  human  conduct  laid  down  in  the  two  foregoing  verses.  It  was  not, 
as  might  have  been  imagined  without  this  addition,  merely  as  a  safe¬ 
guard  against  loss,  that  Christ  advised  his  followers  to  make  provis¬ 
ion  for  the  future,  not  in  this  world,  but  a  better.  It  was  also  as  a 
necessary  means  of  fixing  their  supreme  affections  on  the  proper 
objects,  and  of  thus  determining  their  character  and  destiny.  The 
principle  here  stated  is  the  obvious  but  momentous  one,  that  what 
men  value  they  will  love,  and  that  the  two  things  cannot  be  divided  in 
experience.  Theoretically,  this  may  seem  to  be  an  identical  proposi¬ 
tion,  or,  at  least,  a  truism  ;  but  experience  demonstrates  its  necessity, 
and  man’s  native  disposition  practically  to  deny  it,  as  evinced  by  their 
professions  to  love  God  supremely,  while  the  objects  which  they  value 
most  belong  to  this  world.  To  this  universal,  soul-destroying  error, 
Christ  opposes  a  familiar  truth,  which  all  admit  in  theory  and  all  deny 
in  practice,  namely,  that  the  two  things  thus  divorced  must  go  togeth¬ 
er  ;  that  the  man  who  loves  God  will  inevitably  seek  his  happiness  in 
him,  both  for  the  present  and  the  future,  while  the  man  that  seeks  it 
in  this  life,  thereby  proves  himself  a  lover  of  the  world,  and  not  of 
God,  which  two  affections  are  declared  by  an  apostle  to  be  wholly 
incompatible.*  The  reference,  of  course,  is  not  to  friendly  or  benig¬ 
nant  dispositions,  but  to  governing  affections,  as  in  Luke  14,  26,  one 
of  the  strongest  of  our  Saviour’s  divine  paradoxes,  and  intelligible  only 
in  the  light  of  the  great  principle  here  laid  down,  that  the  treasure  and 
the  heart  will  always  go  together ;  that  the  quarter  to  which  men  now 


*See  James  4,  4,  where  all  the  English  versions  weaken  the  expression  by 
the  use  of  the  terms  friend  and  friendship^  instead  of  love  and  lovei\  which  are 
here  requred  by  the  nature  of  the  subject,  though  the  others  are  always  employed 
elsewhere. 


181 


MATTHEW  6,21.22. 

look  for  hnppiness  is  that  in  which  they  place  their  best  affections. 
^Y^lere  and  there ^  are  terms  properly  belonging  to  the  figure  of  a  local 
treasure,  but  admitting  of  an  easy  application,  in  all  languages,  to 
spiritual  subjects  and  relations.  The  distinction  in  the  tenses,  here,  is 
not  unmeaning,  but  indicates  a  necessary  logical  connection.  ‘Where 
3'our  treasure  now  is  —  where  you  now  look  for  the  sources  of  j-our 
future  happiness — there  will  your  heart,  or  your  supreme  affections, 
as  a  necessary  consequence,  be  found  to  be.’  Thus  completed,  the 
whole  doctrine  of  these  verses  (19-21)  is,  that  not  in  reference  merely 
to  religious  duties,  such  as  alms,  and  prayer,  and  fasting,  but  to  all 
religion,  and  to  all  life,  the  only  security  for  future  good,  is  to  be  found 
in  God — in  absolute  reliance  on  him,  and  in  absolute  devotion  to  him. 

22.  The  light  of  the  body  is  the  eye  :  if  therefore 
thine  eye  be  single^  thy  whole  body  shall  be  full  of  light. 

Here  again  it  has  been  not  unusual  to  imagine  an  abrupt  transition, 
or  a  total  breach  of  continuity,  arising  either  from  the  incoherence  of 
our  Lord’s  discourse,  or  from  the  fragmentary  manner  in  which  Mat¬ 
thew  has  reported  it.  The  whole  assumption  is  gratuitous  and  ground¬ 
less.  Without  seeking  any  subtle  artilicial  means,  Avhich  would  be  as 
much  displaced  and  out  of  character  as  desultory  unconnected  talk,  it 
is  easy  to  demonstrate  an  association  of  ideas  between  this  and  the 
foregoing  context,  amply  sufficient  to  repel  the  charge  of  total  inco¬ 
herence,  without  any  violence  to  the  thought  or  language.  This  desir¬ 
able  result  may  be  attained  by  simply  viewing  the  remainder  of  this 
chapter  (:^2-34)  as  an  extended  illustration  and  enforcement  of  the 
truth  taught  in  the  three  preceding  verses  (19-21).  The  illustration, 
properly  so  called,  is  twofold,  being  partly  drawn  from  the  animal 
economy  of  man  (22-23),  and  partly  from  his  domestic  habits  and  re¬ 
lations  (24).  The  part  of  the  human  constitution  thus  made  use  of  is 
the  sight,  and  that  not  in  a  technical  or  scientific,  but  a  popular  and 
superficial  wa\q  as  usual  in  Sci  ii)ture,  which  refers  to  natural  phenom¬ 
ena  and  facts,  not  as  philosophers  explain  them,  but  as  other  people 
sec  them.  The  particular  fact  here  used  to  illustrate  spiritual  truth,  is 
the  familiar  one,  that  sight  is  simple,  that  the  eye,  in  order  to  perform 
its  office,  must  concentrate  its  visual  power  on  the  object,  and  that 
whatever  tends  to  mar  this  unity  by  making  it  see  double  or  confusing 
its  perceptions,  tends  to  vitiate  its  action  and  defeat  the  very  end  of 
its  existence.  The  reason  for  selecting  this  particular  comparison  is 
intimated  in  the  first  clause  of  the  verse  before  us,  namely,  the  impor¬ 
tance  of  the  eyesight  in  the  animal  economy.  The  light,  or  luminary, 
source  of  light,  the  same  word  that  is  used  above  in  5, 15,  and  there 
translated  candle,  as  it  is  here  in  the  Rhemish  Bible,  and  bv  Wiciif 
lantern.  The  meaning  obviously  is  that  this  part  of  the  body  is  the 
only  one  by  which  man  can  enjoy  the  light,  by  which  he  must  be 
guided  in  his  movements  and  made  acquainted  with  external  objects. 
Therefore.,  since  this  is  the  office  and  importance  of  the  eye  in  the  hu¬ 
man  constitution.  Thine  eye.,  suddenly  returning  to  the  singular  pro- 


182 


MATTHEW  6,22.23. 


noun,  as  in  v.  17,  and  no  doubt  for  the  same  purpose  of  impressive  in¬ 
dividualization.  Single^  in  the  strict  and  proper  sense  as  opposite  to 
double  or  to  manifold,  the  only  meaning  justilied  by  usage  or  the  con¬ 
text.  The  sense  of  sound  or  healthy,  given  by  some  writers,  is  a  mere 
conjectural  deduction  from  the  supposed  meaning  of  the  corresponding 
epithet,  which,  as  we  have  seen  before  (on  5, 11.  37.  39.  45.  G,  13),  may 
denote  either  physical  or  moral  evil,  and  must  therefore,  it  is  hastily 
concluded,  when  applied  to  a  bodily  organ,  mean  diseased,  disordered, 
and  the  parallel  of  course  can  only  mean  the  opposite  condition.  But 
the  true  deduction  is  the  inverse  one,  from  the  specific  to  the  vague 
terra.  As  the  former  {InxKovi)  certainly  means  simple,  single,  the  in¬ 
definite  term  evil  means  of  course  defective  or  diseased  in  this  particu¬ 
lar  respect,  i.  e.  double,  mixed,  confused.  Or  rather  this  is  not  the 
specific  meaning  of  the  adjective  itself,  but  only  the  restriction  of  its 
meaning  as  required  in  this  connection.  The  indefinite  sense  put 
upon  the  terra  by  some  not  only  violates  ail  usage  and  the  laws  of 
lexicograph}',  but  utterly  obscures  the  connection,  and  afiords  a  pre¬ 
text  for  the  charge  of  incoherence.  If  there  is  no  allusion  to  simplic¬ 
ity  or  singleness  of  sight,  but  only  to  its  sound  or  healthy  state,  the 
illustration  loses  all  its  point,  and  must  be  treated  as  a  mere  digression 
or  interpolation.  On  the  other  hand,  if  single  have  its  proper  sense,  and 
evil  be  interpreted  according  to  it,  the  comparison  is  perfectly  adapted 
to  its  purpose,  namely,  that  of  showing,  by  a  physical  analogy,  the 
vast  importance,  nay,  the  absolute  necessity,  of  such  a  single  and  exclu¬ 
sive  trust  and  love  to  God  as  had  been  just  before  enjoined  upon  our 
Lord’s  disciples.  Full  of  light  is  Tyndale’s  paraphrase  of  our  word 
simply  meaning  light  or  luminous.^  and  better  though  not  perfectly 
expressed  by  Wichf  (lightful)  and  the  Bhemish  version  (lightsome). 
Ihe  essential  meaning  is  that  if  the  eye  be  single  it  will  answer  its 
purpose  or  perform  its  office  with  respect  to  the  whole  body,  which  is 
not  represented  as  all  eye  (1  Cor.  12,  17),  but  merely  as  deriving 
through  the  eye  from  the  light  whatever  benefit  that  element  or  sub¬ 
stance  was  intended  to  impart.  The  future  (shall  or  will  he),  as  in 
V.  21,  denotes  a  necessary  consequence. 

23.  But  if  thine  eye  be  evil,  thy  whole  body  shall  be 
full  of  darkness.  If  therefore  the  light  that  is  in  thee  be 
darkness,  how  great  (is)  that  darkness  ! 

This  is  the  alternative  or  converse  supposition  of  an  evil  eye,  not  in 
the  moral  application  of  that  phrase  occurring  elsewhere  (see  below, 
on  20.  15,  and  compare  Mark  7,  22.  2  Pet.  2,  14),  but  in  the  physical 
sense  of  a  bad  eye,  i.  e.  one  diseased,  and  here  still  further  specified  by 
single  in  v.  22,  so  as  to  mean  destitute  of  that  simplicity  or  singleness 
essential  to  the  healthy  function  of  the  organ  and  its  undisturbed  effect 
upon  the  animal  economy.  Full  of  darhness  is  still  more  objectionable 
here  than  full  of  light  in  the  preceding  verse,  because  it  seems  neces¬ 
sarily  expressive  of  a  total  obscuration  or  stark  blindness,  which  is  not 


MATTHEW  6,23. 


183 


the  natural  efTcct  of  the  duplicity,  complexit.y,  or  confusion  here  sup¬ 
posed.  The  ditBculty  lies  exclusively  in  Tyndalc’s  paraphrase,  retained 
by  all  the  Protestant  translators.  The  original  expression  is  a  single 
word  {(TKOT^ivov)  corresponding  exactly  to  the  English  dark,  and  so 
translated  in  these  very  versions  of  Luke  11,  36,  although  in  v.  34  of 
the  same  chapter,  it  is  rendered  as  it  is  here,  full  of  darkness  !  These 
capricious  variations  ought  to  make  us  vigilant  in  constantly  compar¬ 
ing  even  the  most  perfect  versions  with  the  one  inspired  original. 
Thy  whole  hody  shall  he  dark  is  here  the  true  translation,  i.  e.  not 
entirely  destitute  of  light  or  vision,  but  obscured,  confused,  and  dimmed 
in  its  perceptions,  by  the  want  of  singleness  or  oneness  in  the  visual 
organ.  As  in  v.  23,  this  is  said  of  the  whole  body,  only  as  losing 
the  advantage  which  it  would  have  otherwise  enjoyed.  When  the 
whole  frame  suffers  from  the  darkness  of  the  eye,  it  ma}’-,  almost 
wdthout  a  figure,  be  itself  described  as  dark.  Therefore,  since 
the  safety  and  the  comfort  of  the  whole  frame -thus  depend  upon 
the  singleness  and  clearness  of  the  vision.  The  light  {the  07ie)  in 
thee,  not  the  light  in  general,  but  that  part  of  the  animal  economy  by 
which  its  blessings  are  secured  to  the  whole  bod3^  Darkness,  the 
correlative  of  liglit,  and  used  in  the  same  way,  not  to  denote  absolute 
privation,  but  any  obscuration,  caused  by  the  diseased  state  of  the 
organ.  That  it  is  not  to  be  absolutely  understood,  appears  from  the 
very  exclamation  or  interrogation  in  the  last  clause,  which  would  then 
contain  an  anticlimax,  the  darkness  being  first  described  as  total  and 
then  apostrophized  as  very  great ;  whereas,  if  the  body  is  first  S})oken 
of  as  dark,  and  then  the  darkness  as  a  great  one,  there  is  a  natural  and 
striking  climax.  There  is  something  in  the  very  collocation  of  the 
Greek  verbs  here  peculiarly  impressive: — -the  darkness,  how  great! 
i.  e.  how  great  is  it !  The  interrogative  construction,  hoio  great  (gs 
it)  ?  is  essentially  the  same,  the  exclamation,  in  such  cases,  being  only 
an  impassioned  question.  But  the  main  force  and  beauty  of  the  last 
clause  arise  from  its  relating  not  so  much  to  the  physical  case  sup¬ 
posed  as  to  the  spiritual  case  which  it  was  brought  in  to  illustrate. 
Without  any  formal  application  of  the  figure,  which  would  only  have 
impaired  the  illustration,  the  divine  instructor  far  more  forcibly  sug¬ 
gests  it  by  an  exclamation,  applicable  both  to  the  imaginary  and  the 
real  case,  but  infinitely  more  impressive  in  relation  to  the  latter.  Tliis 
rhetorical  device,  if  it  ma}''  be  so  called  without  detracting  from  its 
godlike  authority  and  wisdom,  may  be  rendered  clear,  though  neces¬ 
sarily  enfeebled,  by  a  paraphrase  of  this  kind.  ‘  Such  is  the  eflect  of 
double  or  confused  sight  on  the  body,  not  unlike  that  of  a  double  or 
divided  heart  upon  the  soul.  How  great  must  be  the  darkness  even 
in  the  one  case,  but  how  infinitely  greater  and  more  fatal  in  the  other ! 
Let  your  heart  and  treasure  therefore  be  together;  not  on  earth,  where 
both  must  one  day  perish,  but  in  heaven,  in  God,  beyond  the  reach  of 
such  a  danger ;  not  divided  between  both,  which  is  indeed  impossible, 
for  though  you  may  imagine  that  you  love  God  while  you  seek  your 
happiness  in  this  world,  }’0u  will  one  day  know,  and  by  your  own  ex¬ 
perience,  whether  saved  or  lost,  that  where  your  treasure  is,  there  will 
your  heart -be  also.’ 


184 


MATTHEW  6,24. 


24.  No  man  can  serve  two  masters  :  for  either  lie  will 
hate  the  one,  and  love  the  other  ;  or  else  he  will  hold  to 
the  one,  and  despise  the  other.  Ye  cannot  serve  God  and 
mammon. 

Another  illustrative  argument  in  favour  of  an  undivided  trust  in 
God  and  devotion  to  him,  is  derived  from  a  familiar  fact  in  social  or 
domestic  life,  to  wit  that  the  cfiBciency  and  value  of  a  servant  are  de¬ 
pendent  on  a  like  concentration  of  his  powers  and  affections  in  the  ser¬ 
vice  of  one  master.  The  apparent  inconsistency  between  this  state¬ 
ment  and  familiar  cases  of  a  different  description,  where  a  man  does 
seem  efficiently  to  serve  more  than  one  employer,  may  be  easily  re¬ 
moved  by  two  considerations.  The  first  is,  that  the  service  here  de¬ 
scribed  is  that  of  a  slave,  the  Greek  verb  meaning,  both  in  classical  and 
Hellenistic  usage,  to  be  a  slave  or  to  act  the  part  of  one.  AVhat  might 
be  true,  then,  of  a  freeman  labouring  for  hire,  now  in  this  man’s  ser¬ 
vice,  now  in  that  man’s,  or  in  both  at  once,  would  be  untrue  and  im¬ 
possible  of  one  whose  time  and  labour  are  the  property  of  another. 
The  only  way  in  which  such  a  bondman  could  serve  two  masters  is  by 
virtue  of  a  partnership  between  them.  But  this  is  precluded  by  a 
second  consideration,  namel}'^,  that  the  two  masters  here  are  evidently 
two  whose  rights  and  interests  and  orders  are  in  conflict,  as  appears 
from  the  alternative  prediction  in  the  second  clause.  The  first  case 
there  supposed  is  stronger  than  the  second,  love  and  hatred  indicating 
more  disparity  than  simply  cleaving  to  the  one  and  looking  down  upon 
the  other.  The  former  verb  is  used  in  the  classics  to  denote  a  special 
devotion  to  some  one  god,  and  more  correctly  rendered  in  our  Bible 
than  by  Tyridale  and  his  followers,  who  use  the  weaker  and  more  in¬ 
exact  form,  lean  to^  or  by  the  Bomish  versions,  which  follow  the  Vul¬ 
gate  in  translating  it  sustain.  The  meaning  seems  to  be  that  even 
where  there  is  not  love  and  hatred,  in  the  strict  sense,  to  the  different 
masters,  there  will  be  a  preference  of  one  and  a  correspondent  slight¬ 
ing  of  the  other,  when  their  orders  or  their  wdshes  are  in  conflict.  The 
application  here  is  more  express  than  in  the  previous  illustration.  In¬ 
stead  of  using  terms  directly  applicable  to  the  case  of  real  human  ser¬ 
vice  and  leaving  the  hearers  to  apply  it  to  the  higher  case  illustrated 
by  it,  he  winds  up  by  expressly  and  most  pointedly  declaring.  Ye  can¬ 
not  serve  (both)  God  and  Mammon.  This  last,  written  in  some  manu¬ 
scripts  with  one  m  (ixafxct)va),  is  an  Aramaic  word  applied  to  wealth  or 
riches,  but  according  to  the  most  probable  etymology,  originall}'  mean¬ 
ing  trust  or  confidence,  and  thus  describing  wealth,  not  simjily  in  itself 
as  a  material  condition,  but  in  its  moral  aspect  as  a  ground  of  liope, 
which  brings  the  passage  into  beautiful  agreement  with  our  Lord’s  ex¬ 
planation  of  his  own  paradoxical  assertion  that  a  rich  man  cannot  enter 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  (Mark  10,  24).  Mammon  being  here  referred 
to  as  a  master,  is  of  course  personified  or  treated  as  a  person  ;  but  that 
such  a  god  was  actually  worshipped  by  the  Syrians,  like  the  Plutus  of 
the  Greek  mythology,  has  never  been  established,  though  familiarized 


MATTHEW  6,24.25. 


185 


to  all  minds  by  the  poetry  of  Milton,  which  has  given  personality,  not 
only  to  tliis  Aramaic  word,  but  to  the  Hebrew  Belial,  meaning  good- 
for-nothing,  worthless. 

“Thus  Belial,  with  words  clothed  in  reason’s  garb, 

Counselled  ignoble  ease  and  peaceful  sloth. 

Not  peace;  and  after  him  thus  Mammon  spake.” 

Paradise  Lost,  Book  ii.,  vs.  226-228. 

25.  Therefore  I  say  unto  yon,  Take  no  thought  for 
your  life,  what  ye  shall  eat,  or  what  ye  shall  drink  ;  nor 
yet  for  your  body,  what  ye  shall  put  on.  Is  not  the  life 
more  than  meat,  and  the  body  than  raiment  ? 

A  natural  and  almost  unavoidable  misapprehension  of  the  foregoing 
exhortation  to  live  only  for  God  and  heaven  was  the  notion,  that  it  ne¬ 
cessarily  involved  the  loss  of  every  thing  belonging  to  this  life;  where¬ 
as  it  was  in  fact  a  deliverance  from  all  care,  and  the  strongest  possible 
assurance  that  even  their  earthly  wants  would  be  provided  for.  There¬ 
fore.  literally, /hr  this^  i.  e.  for  tins  cause,  for  this  very  reason.  So  far 
was  entire  devotion  to  God  from  leaving  those  who  practised  it  in  want 
or  in  danger  of  it,  that  it  was  the  strongest  reason  for  dismissing  all 
anxiety  about  the  subject,  because  he  who  serves  God  wdll  be  cared  for 
by  him.  I  say  unto  you^  as  my  disciples,  with  the  authority  belonging 
to  me  as  your  master.  Talce  no  thought  for.,  an  old  English  phrase, 
employed  by  Bacon  and  Shakspeare  in  the  sense  of  being  anxious  or 
excessively  solicitous.  The  idea  of  excess  is  here  essential,  so  that  or¬ 
dinary  thought  or  care  is  not  excluded.  Life.,  in  Greek  a  word  which 
signifies  the  soul  considered  as  the  vital  principle,  and  therefore  ren¬ 
dered  both  by  life  and  soul  in  different  connections.  Compare  2,  20 
above  with  10,  28  below,  where  being  in  antithesis  to  body.,  it  is  ren¬ 
dered  soul.  The  same  combination  occurs  here,  and  therefore  soul  would 
seem  to  be  the  proper  version.  The  only  objection  is  that  as  food  be¬ 
longs  no  less  than  clothing  to  the  body,  the  antithesis  would  be  a  false 
one.  This  objection  might  perhaps  be  met  by  the  scriptural  use  of 
soul  and  heart  for  the  inner  as  distinguished  from  the  outer  man  ;  but 
on  the  whole  it  may  be  better  to  remove  the  difficulty,  if  there  be  one, 
by  assuming  no  antithesis,  but  simply  a  distinct  mention  of  the  life  and 
body,  because  dress  is  not  essential  to  the  life,  as  food  is,  although 
needed  for  the  decency  and  comfort  of  the  body.  Shall  eat  and  shall 
drinlc,  English  futures  used  to  represent  the  aorist  subjunctive,  which 
is  properly  suggestive  of  doubt  and  contingenc3^  Perhaps  the  best 
translation  as  to  sense,  although  not  perfectly  exact  in  form,  would  be, 
uihat  ye  are  to  eat  arid  drink.  The  last  clause  is  an  argument  from 
greater  to  less.  He  who  gives  us  life  may  be  expected  to  sustain  it; 
he  who  made  the  body  may  be  trusted  to  protect  it  and  provide  for  it. 
Instead  of  being  stated  as  a  formal  proposition,  this  reasoning  is  made 
'at  once  more  pointed  and  more  popular  by  being  compressed  into  a 
question.  The  same  interrogative  form  is  employed  by  Paul  in  an  ar¬ 
gument  of  precisely  the  same  kind,  though  relating  to  the  most  “  un¬ 
speakable  ”  of  all  gifts.  (Rom.  8,  32.) 


186 


MATTHEW  0,  26.27. 


26.  Behold  the  fowls  of  the  air  :  for  they  sow  not, 
neither  do  they  reap,  nor  gather  into  barns  ;  yet  your 
heavenly  Father  feedeth  them.  Are  ye  not  much  better 
than  they  ? 

This  is  an  argument  from  less  to  greater.  He  who  cares  for  the 
inferior  creation  cannot  fail  to  provide  for  his  intelligent  creatures,  and 
especially  for  those  who  serve  and  trust  him.  This  argument,  extend¬ 
ing  through  V.  30,  has  a  beautiful  S3mimetry  almost  poetical  in  form, 
arising  from  a  twofold  parallelism  of  the  sentences,  the  first  illustration 
being  drawn  from  the  animal  kingdom  and  relating  to  the  care  for 
food,  the  second  from  the  vegetable  world  and  relating  to  the  care 
for  raiment  (28-30).  Behold^  look  at,  an  expression  strengthened  by 
a  double  preposition,  one  before  the  verb  and  one  before  the  noun,  im¬ 
plying  close  attention,  searching  observation.  Abwj/s.  now  restricted  to 
edible,  domesticated  birds, was  used  in  old  English  to  denote  birds  in  gen¬ 
eral,  and  is  here  employed  to  represent  a  Greek  word  strictly  meaning 
winged  or  flying  {things).  The  a  ir.^  literall}’,  the  shy  (or  heaven)  here 
put,  as  often  in  the  classics,  for  the  space  above  the  earth,  the  visible  ex¬ 
panse,  the  atmosphere,  through  which  the  birds  fly.  Sow  not^  &c.,  they 
do  not  even  use  the  means  wdiich  man  is  bound  to  use  and  does  use,  but 
arc  wholly  dependent  on  their  instincts  and  the  bounties  of  their  INlakcr. 
Sowing,  reaping,  and  ingathering,  are  the  three  stages  of  agricultural 
employment  and  provision  for  the  food  of  man,  all  w^hich  are  here 
denied  in  reference  to  the  birds,  which  is  equivalent  to  saying  that 
they  use  no  means  at  all  for  the  production  of  their  own  food.  Your 
heavenly  father  is  not  a  mere  periphrasis  for  God,  but  suggestive  of 
an  almost  infinite  disparity  between  the  cases.  Instead  of  saying, 
their  heavenly  father  feedeth  them.^  which,  in  a  lower  sense,  wmuld  be 
correct,  he  says,  your  heavenly  intimating  that  the  God  who 

thus  provides  for  the  inferior  animals,  is  bound  by  a  peculiar  fatherly 
relation  to  provide  for  man,  and  still  more  for  those  men  who,  as  his 
Son’s  disciples,  are  his  children  in  the  most  intimate  and  strictest 
sense.  The  conclusion  from  these  premises  is  indicated  in  the  last 
clause,  and  again  in  the  form  of  an  interrogation.  Are  ye  not  much  better, 
Tyndale’s  version  of  an  idiomatic  Greek  phrase  not  susceptible  of  close 
translation,  the  verb  meaning  properly  to  differ,  with  an  adverb  mean¬ 
ing  mdre,  and  thus  determining  the  difference  to  be  in  favour  of  the 
subject,  which  is  then  represented  as  excelling,  being  worth  more, 
than  the  object  of  comparison  (Wick,  more  worthy — Rheims,  more  of 
‘price).  The  reasoning  involved  in  this  comparison  and  question  is 
that  he  who  thus  takes  care  of  wdiat  is  less  valuable,  will  of  course 
take  care  of  what  is  more  so.  Barns,  in  Greek,  a  wider  term  denot¬ 
ing  any  kind  of  storehouse  or  deposit  (see  above,  on  3,  12). 

27.  Which,  of  you  by  taking  thought  can  add  one 
cubit  unto  his  stature  ? 

Before  proceeding  to  his  second  analogical  argument,  our  Lord  cor- 


U  A  T  T  H  E  W  6,  27.  28. 


187 


roborates  the  first  by  adding  a  suggestion  as  to  the  entire  inefficiency 
and  uselessness  of  anxious  care  in  reference  to  human  life,  which  cannot 
thereby  be  extended  or  prolonged.  The  form  is  still  that  of  a  ques¬ 
tion,  here  implying  strong  negation.  By  tahing  thought^  in  the  origi¬ 
nal,  a  simple  participle,  caring^  being  anxious.  Can^  a  distinct  and  in¬ 
dependent  verb  in  Greek,  is  able.  To  add.,  or  put  to,  as  the  original 
expression  etymologically  signifies,  Stature^  a  secondary  meaning  of 
the  Greek  noun,  which  primarily  relates  to  time  and  corresponds  to 
age  in  English,  but  is  also  used  to  denote  corporeal  growth,  as  an  effect 
and  sign  of  advancing  age.  There  is  a  twofold  objection  to  the  version 
stature ;  first,  that  Christ  is  here  speaking  of  the  life  and  of  food  as 
necessary  to  sustain  it,  and  passes  in  the  next  verse  to  the  body  and 
its  raiment ;  a  consideration  of  the  more  importance  from  the  regular 
and  balanced  structure  of  the  passage,  as  already  noticed.  In  the 
next  place,  the  addition  of  a  cubit  to  one’s  stature  is  a  very  great  one  ; 
whereas  the  one  here  mentioned  is  described  in  a  parallel  passage 
(Luke  12,  2G)  as  “that  which  is  least.”  The  only  objection  to  the 
version  age,  is  that  cubit  is  not  a  measure  of  time  but  of  space,  being 
derived,  like  most  measures  of  length,  from  the  average  dimensions  of 
the  human  body  (compare  foot,  pace,  ell,  handbreadth,  span,  &c.) 
Cubit  originally  means  the  fore-arm,  irova  the  elbow  to  the  wrist; 
then,  as  a  standard  of  measure,  from  the  elbow  to  the  tips  of  the 
fingers,  usually  reckoned  as  a  length  of  eighteen  inches,  or  a  foot  and 
a  half,  more  or  less.  But  how  could  such  a  measure,  the  precise  ex¬ 
tent  of  which  varied  in  practice  and  is  wholly  unimportant,  be  applied 
to  time,  or  to  the  length  of  human  life  ?  Only  with  tacit  reference  to 
the  figure  of  a  race  or  journey,  often  used  in  Scripture  and  familiar  in  all 
languages :  ‘  Who  by  anxious  care  can  add  even  a  foot  or  two  to  his 
appointed  course  on  earth?  ’  We  then  have  the  advantage  of  giving 
to  the  Greek  noun  (rjXiKui)  its  primary  meaning,  and  one  perfectly 
consistent  with  the  parallel  in  Luke  ;  for  though  a  cubit  is  a  veiy 
large  addition  to  one’s  stature,  it  is  a  very  small  one  to  the  length  of 
a  journe}'',  and  still  less  to  the  duration  of  a  lifetime. 

28.  And  why  take  ye  thought  for  raiment  ?  Con¬ 
sider  the  lilies  of  the  field  how  they  grow  ;  they  toil  not, 
neither  do  they  spin. 

Here  begins  the  second  illustration  or  comparison,  which  has  respect 
to  clothing  and  is  drawn  from  the  vegetable  kingdom.  The  form  of 
direct  prohibition,  used  in  v.  25,  is  here  exchanged  for  that  of  interroga¬ 
tion,  so  predominant  in  this  whole  context,  and  implying  a  negation 
no  less  pointed  than  the  other,  deike  thought,  the  same  verb  as  in  v. 
25,  and  meaning  anxious  care,  undue  solicitude.  Consider,  an  inten¬ 
sive  compound  of  the  verb  to  learn,  originally  meaning  to  learn 
thoroughly,  and  then,  as  a  necessary  means,  to  study  closely,  to  ob¬ 
serve  attentively,  a  secondary  sense  as  old  as  Herodotus.  The  use  of 
the  word  here  suggests  that  what  is  thus  proposed  is  not  a  mere  in¬ 
dulgence  of  the  taste  or  curiosity,  but  a  moral  lesson  to  be  learned  by 


188 


MATTHEW  6,28.29. 

studying  the  works  and  providence  of  God,  a  method  of  instruction  prac¬ 
tised  long  before  by  tSoloinon  (see  Prov.  6,  6-8.  60, 24-31),  to  which  there 
may  be  here  an  intentional  allusion  as  his  name  is  introduced  just 
afterwards.  Study  the  lilies  of  the  'fields  wild  flowers,  without  hu¬ 
man  care  or  cultivation.  All  speculation,  as  to  the  precise  kind  of  lily 
here  intended,  is  gratuitous  and  exegetically  unimportant.  There  is 
no  need  of  assuming  an  allusion  to  a  gorgeous  purple  lily,  found  in 
some  parts  of  the  east,  on  account  of  the  comparison  which  follows, 
and  which  is  no  less  relevant  and  true  of  the  most  ordinary  species. 
The  point  of  comparison  is  not  the  colour,  but  the  luxuriant  growth 
and  native  beauty.  How  they  grow^  a  use  of  the  active  verb  found  onl}^ 
in  the  later  Greek,  the  older  writers  giving  it  the  ti  ansitive  or  causa¬ 
tive  sense  of  making  grow  or  causing  to  increase,  which  is  also  found 
in  1  Cor.  3,  6.  7,  while  always  elsewhere,  as  in  this  case,  it  is  used  as 
an  intransitive  or  neuter.*  The  Greek  verbs  are  in  the  singular  num¬ 
ber,  but  agree,  according  to  a  well-known  idiom  of  the  language,  with 
a  plural  subject  of  the  neuter  gender.  But  the  latest  critics  give  the 
verbs  a  plural  form,  as  found  in  the  Codex  Vaticanus  and  some 
others,  and  as  quoted  by  Chrysostom  and  Athanasius.  The  diflerence 
is  merely  one  of  form,  requiring  no  change  in  the  English  version. 
Toil  and  spin  may  either  be  generic  and  specific  terms,  denoting  work 
in  general  and  one  familiar  form  of  it;  or  toil  may  have  the  moie 
resti  icted  sense  of  work  relating  to  the  preparation  of  clothing,  in  ad¬ 
dition  to  the  primary  operation  of  spinning,  such  as  weaving,  sewing, 
and  the  like.  These  terms  then  con-espond  with  beautiful  exactness 
to  the  processes  of  husbandry  employed  for  the  same  purpose  in  the 
other  illustration  or  comparison  (v.  26). 

29,  And  yet  I  say  unto  you,  That  even  Solomon  in 
all  his  glory  was  not  arrayed  like  one  of  these. 

And  yet  is  not  too  strong  a  version  of  the  particle  (S/)  here  used  to 
introduce  a  comparison  or  contrast.  But^  although  they  use  no  means 
to  furnish  their  own  clothing,  I  say  unto  you.  implying  not  so  much 
the  importance  of  the  thing  said  as  its  seeming  improbabilit}’’,  requiring 
an  authoritative  asseveration  to  command  belief.  Even  Solomon,  with 
possible  allusion,  as  already  hinted,  to  his  similar  method  of  enforcing 
moral  truth,  but  with  a  much  more  certain  one  to  the  proverbial 
splendour  of  his  reign,  still  traditionally  cherished  in  the  East  as  the 
type  of  a  magnificent  Asiatic  monarch.  All  his  glory,  great  and  un¬ 
exampled  as  it  was.  Glory  has  here  no  reference  to  moral  excellence, 
but  only  to  external  splendour,  which  is  a  frequent  sense  of  the  Greek 
word  in  the  Septuagint  version  and  of  the  corresponding  Hebrew  noun 
(ni33),  even  when  applied  to  God,  describing  not  his  absolute  pcrfeC'. 
tion,  but  his  sensible  manifestation  to  his  creatures,  as  in  Aud Shechinah, 

*  The  converse  of  this  change  may  be  observed  in  the  English  grow,  whick 
was  originally  neuter,  but  in  later  usage  often  has  the  active  sense  of  cultivating,, 
raising,  or  producing,  when  applied  to  vegetable  products. 


189 


MATTHEW  6,29.30.31. 

or  cloud  of  the  divine  presence  in  the  tabernacle  and  temple,  and 
still  earlier  in  the  patriarchal  and  primeval  theophanies.  Here  it  means 
the  royal  state  of  Solomon,  especially  his  regal  costume  or  otRcial 
dress.  Not  even  Solomon  was  arrayed^  litei-ally,  thrown  about  or  cast 
around,  i.  e.  with  clothing.  i.  e.  so  splendidly  and  beautifully. 

One  of  these^  not  these  collectively,  or  in  the  aggregate,  but  any  one  of 
them  deserves  to  be  compared  with  Solomon  in  all  his  glory. 


30.  Wherefore,  if  God  so  clothe  the  grass  of  the  field, 
which  to-day  is,  and  to-morrow  is  cast  into  the  oven, 
(shall  he)  not  much  more  (clothe)  you,  0  ye  of  little 
faith  ? 

The  premises  or  data  having  been  recited,  the  argument  from  less 
to  greater  is  now  stated,  but  again  in  the  form  of  an  interrogation. 
Wherefore^  the  logical  connect ive  between  this  and  the  preceding  verses, 
is  the  word  above  translated  and  yet  (in  v.  29)  and  elsewhere  butov  and^ 
as  in  vs.  16.  20,  or  omitted  altogether,  as  in  v.  27.  7/’ does  not  express 

a  doubt  or  a  contingency,  but  simply  sets  forth  what  is  actually  true  as 
premises  from  which  to  argue,  and  is  nearly  equivalent  to  since  or  where¬ 
as^  in  English.  Grass^  a  Greek  word  originally  meaning  an  enclosure, 
then  applied  especiall}''  to  pastures,  and  by  another  natural  transi¬ 
tion,  to  the  grass  itself.  The  term  is  here  used  in  the  wide  sense  of 
herbage,  so  as  to  include  the  smaller  plants,  as  distinguished  both  from 
trees  and  from  the  larger  shrubs  or  bushes.  The  point  of  comparison 
is  fragility  and  brief  duration,  as  expressed  directly  in  the  next  clause. 
To-day  and  to-morrow^  put  for  one  day  and  the  next,  or  by  a  natural 
figure  of  speech,  for  any  two  points  of  time  not  distant  from  each 
otlier.  /s,  literally,  being^  i.  e.  existing,  living,  and  by  necessary  im¬ 
plication,  flourishing,  luxuriating,  as  before  described.  Cast  into  the 
oi'e?i,  the  precise  shape  or  size  of  Avhich  has  no  effect  upon  the  meaning, 
as  the  point  of  the  comparison  is  nothing  peculiar  to  the  ov^ens  of  the 
East,  but  that  which  is  common  to  all  ovens  from  their  very  nature 
and  design,  to  wit,  that  they  are  lieated,  and  that  this  requires  fuel. 
More  peculiar  to  the  East  may  be  the  use  of  withered  grass  and  flowers 
for  this  purpose,  as  alleged  by  archmologists  and  travellers.  The  argu¬ 
ment  seems  here  to  be  drawn  from  the  different  duration  of  the  human 
and  the  vegetable  subject;  but  this  is  only  mentioned  to  enhance  the 
vast  dispai-ity  between  them,  which  extends  to  many  other  more  im¬ 
portant  points  of  difference.  Clothe,  a  distinct  verb  from  the  one  in  v. 
30,  but  analogous  in  composition  and  in  u.se.  Shall  he  not  clothe,  sup¬ 
plied  by  the  translators,  weakens  the  expression,  though  it  gives  the 
sense  correctly.  Oh  ye  of  little  faith,  in  Greek  a  single  Avord,  a  com¬ 
pound  adjectiA^e.  Avithout  exact  equivalent  in  English.  It  has  here 
specific  reference  to  faith  or  confidence  in  God’s  protecting  and  provid¬ 
ing  care. 


31.  Therefore  take  no  thought,  saying,  What  shall 


190  MATTHEW  6,31.32.33. 

we  eat  ?  or,  what  shall  we  drink  ?  or,  wherewithal  shall 
we  he  clothed  ? 

The  practical  application  of  the  argument  from  God’s  care  of 
inferior  creatures.  Therefore^  since  that  care  ensures  a  still  more 
lender  care  for  you.  Take  no  thought^  as  in  vs.  25.  27.  28,  be  not 
anxious,  or  excessively  solicitous.  The  interrogative  form  is  again 
used,  but  in  this  case  as  a  natural  expression  of  an  uneasy  doubt  as  to 
bodily  provision  and  support.  The  future,  as  in  v.  25,  is  not  the  form 
of  the  original,  which  more  exactly  means,  'wliat  may  (or  cari)  we  eat? 
but  may  be  rendered  as  before,  what  are  we  to  eat,  or  drink,  or 
wear  ? 

32.  For  after  all  these  things  do  the  Gentiles  seek  ; 
for  your  heavenly  Father  knoweth  that  ye  have  need  of 
all  these  things. 

This  verse  assigns  a  further  reason  for  not  cherishing  an  anxious 
spirit,  namely,  that  at  bottom  it  is  heathenish.  The  Gentiles^  literally, 
nations^  i.  e,  all  besides  the  Jews.  Seek  after ^  a  compound  form  of 
the  verb'  rendered  seek  in  the  next  verse,  and  probably  intended  to 
suggest  the  accessory  idea  of  eagerness,  solicitude,  and  importunity. 
Some  throw  this  first  clause  into  a  parenthesis  and  connect  the  last 
directly  with  the  prohibition  in  v.  3l.  But  as  such  constructions  are 
now  regarded  by  the  best  philological  authorities  as  very  rare,  it  seems 
better  to  explain  the  first  clause  as  a  new  and  additional  reason,  and 
to  connect  the  last  with  something  not  expressed  though  necessarily 
implied.  ‘I  say  be  not  thus  anxious,  for  the  heathen  arc  so,  and  that 
for  a  reason  whi'^h  ought  not  to  exist  in  3’our  case,  namely,  a  doubt 
of  God’s  omniscience.  You  can  have  no  such  motive;  for,’  &c.  Your 
heavenly  father^  as  such  and  because  he  is  such,  with  the  genuine 
affection  of  a  father  towards  his  children.  Have  need  of  is  in  Greek  a 
single  word  {ye)  need.  All  these  {things)^  literally",  these  all^  a  con¬ 
cession  that  the  things  of  this  life  must  be  had  and  therefore  may  be 
sought,  but  not  with  an  overweening  estimate  of  their  importance  or 
a  sceptical  solicitude  to  gain  them. 

33.  But  seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  his 
righteousness  ;  and  all  these  things  shall  he  added  unto 
you. 

Having  now  prohibited,  at  great  length  and  in  various  forms,  the 
indulgence  of  a  sceptical  solicitude  about  even  necessary  things  be¬ 
longing  to  the  present  life,  he  shows  them  how  it  is  to  be  avoided  ;  not 
by  mere  negation,  or  attempting  simply  to  abstain  from  such  anxiety 
and  unbeliel',  but  by  positively  doing  something  else  which  will  im¬ 
mediately  correct  the  evil.  This  remedy  for  unbelieving  doubts  and 
cares  consists  in  constantly  subordinating  all  such  personal  considera- 


191 


MATTHEW  6,  33.  34. 

tions  tG  the  higher  interests  of  the  divine  service,  not  as  excluding  all 
provision  for  this  life  but  as  including  and  securing  it.  Ye  is  not  separ¬ 
ately  expressed  in  Greek,  and  therefore  not  emphatic  as  in  vs.  9.  26, 
because  there  is  hero  no  compai-ison  between  difierent  classes  of  agents, 
but  only  between  dilferent  modes  of  action.  The  kingdom  of  God.,  as 
then  about  to  be  erected,  and  the  cause  which  they  were  bound,  as 
Christ’s  disciples,  to  promote.  His  TigJiteousness.  that  "which  he 
esteems  right  or  has  made  right  by  requiring  it,  conformity  to  God’s 
will  as  the  only  rule  of  right.  The  more  specific  sense  oi  justification 
is  obtained  by  parity  of  reasoning  or  reflection  from  the  apostolic 
teaching ;  but  the  simple  meaning  of  the  words  as  understood,  and 
intended  to  be  understood,  by  the  original  hearers,  is  that  by  seeking 
to  do  God’s  wdll  and  promote  his  cause,  they  would  most  effectually 
further  their  own  interests,  not  only  spiritual  and  eternal,  but  secular 
and  temporal.  All  these  {things\  an  expression  twice  used  in  the 
verse  preceding,  and  applied  to  the  necessary  things  of  this  life,  with 
particular  reference  to  food  and  clothing,  as  the  subject  of  the  pre¬ 
vious  context.  Added  (the  same  verb  as  in  v.  27)  i.  e.  given  over  and 
above  the  spiritual  good  directly  flowing  from  devotion  to  God’s  ser¬ 
vice.  The  whole  prescription,  therefore,  is,  instead  of  anxiously  and 
passionately  hunting,  like  the  heathen,  for  the  good  things  or  even  the 
necessaries  of  this  life,  as  if  God  were  not  awai-e  of  their  necessities  or 
able  to  supply  them,  to  aim  first,  in  time  and  preference,  at  those 
things  which  concern  his  service,  and  believe  that  by  so  doing,  what 
appears  to  be  neglected  will  be  certainly  secured. 

34.  Take  therefore  no  thought  for  the  morrow  :  for 
the  morrow  shall  take  thought  for  the  things  of  itself. 
Sufficient  unto  the  clay  (is)  the  evil  thereof. 

The  most  important  question  here,  is  in  regard  to  the  precise  con¬ 
nection  between  this  verse  and  the  previous  context.  The  more 
obvious,  and  probably  more  common  view  of  this  connection,  is,  that 
we  have  here  a  summary  recapitulation  of  the  whole  discourse  about 
the  cares  of  life,  with  an  additional  reason  for  avoiding  sceptical 
solicitude.  This  may  seem  to  be  favoured  by  the  logical  connective 
( therefore).,  and  the  similarity  of  form  between  this  and  the  e.xhorta- 
tion  in  v.  31.  Against  it  may  be  urged  the  qualifying  phrase,  for  the 
morrow.,  to.  or  towards,  or  with  a  view  to,  the  ensuing  day,  which  does 
not  occur  before,  and  which  seems  designed  to  ini  reduce  another 
class  of  cares,  to  wit.  those  for  the  future  as  distinguished  from  those 
for  the  present.  It  may  be  plausibly  replied,  that  all  care  has  relation 
to  the  future,  though  it  may  not  be  a  distant  one,  and  that  the  cares 
previously  described  by  their  objects  (raiment,  food,  &c.),  are  here  de¬ 
scribed  in  reference  to  time — for  the  morrow  as  a  proximate  futurity. 
Eut  even  granting  this,  which  is  by  no  means  certain,  there  is  a  still 
more  serious  objection  to  the  supposition  that  this  verse  relates  ])recise- 
ly  to  the  same  cares  that  had  been  already  more  than  once  forbidden. 


192 


MATTHEW  6,34. 


This  objection  is,  that  the  reason  here  assigned  is  altogether  ditferent 
fi  oin  any  that  had  been  before  expressed  or  implied,  and  one  peculiarly 
appropriate  to  future,  or  more  distant  cares,  as  distinguished  from 
proximate,  or  present  cares.  That  reason  is,  that  by  letting  our  anxie¬ 
ties  thus  run  ahead,  we  only  accumulate  the  evil,  and  impose  on  each 
successive  dajg  not  only  its  own  burden,  but  the  burden  of  the  da3-s 
that  follow.  This  seems  to  favour,  though  it  does  not  conclusively 
establish  the  opinion  that  our  Saviour,  having  wound  up  his  wai  ning 
against  unbelieving  cares  in  general,  adds,  as  a  sort  of  corollaiy,  a 
specific  warning  against  cares  about  the  morrow,  or  the  future,  as 
distinguished  from  the  present.  Therefore  (too),  or  on  the  same 
grounds,  and  by  parity  of  reasoning,  'be  not  anxious  for  the  morroio^ 
or  in  the  prospect  of  remoter  wants  or  dangers.  The  next  clause 
cannot  mean,  as  it  has  sometimes  been  explained,  that  the  morrow  (or 
the  future)  will  provide  for  itself,  and  need  not,  therefore,  be  pro¬ 
vided  for  beforehand.  The  verb  does  not  mean  to  provide,  but  to  be 
anxious,  and  unduly  anxious,  being  identical  with  that  in  the  preced¬ 
ing  clause,  and  in  vs.  25,  27.  28.  31.  The  only  meaning  that  the  words 
will  bear,  is,  that  the  morrow  will  be  just  as  anxious  as  to-day,  so  that 
by  anticipating  its  anxieties,, the  present  has  a  double  load  to  bear. 
The  {things)  of  itself  is  an  exact  translation  of  what  might  bo 
more  idiomatically  rendered,  its  oion  (things  or  affairs)  as  opposed  to 
those  of  the  preceding  daj^s.*  Suflcient  is  not  to  be  grammatically 
construed  with  eril,  as  the  two  words  are,  in  Greek,  of  diflerent  gen¬ 
ders  ;  but  the  former,  which  is  neuter,  must  be  taken  by  itself,  as 
meaning  a  sufficient  thing,  or  in  a  single  word,  enough.  Unto  does 
not  answer  to  a  preposition,  but  is  simpl}'-  the  sign  of  the  dative  case, 
and  as  such,  might  have  been  translated  for.  The  dayfm  this  con¬ 
nection,  evidently  means  each  or  every  day,  as  it  arrives.  like 

the  cognate  adjective,  and  the  syncn3mie  empIo3md  above,  in  vs.  13.  23, 
ma3’'  denote  either  natural  or  moral  evil,  either  suffering  or  sin,  and 
more  p£ii'ticularl3"  malice.  The  former  seems  to  suit  the  context  here, 
and  to  afford  a  good  sense,  najnely,  that  the  suffering  of  each  day  is  as 
much  as  it  can  bear,  without  gratuitously  adding  what  belongs  to 
others.  In  favour  of  the  other  explanation  is  the  constant  usage  of 
the  word  in  the  New  Testament,  there  being  ten  other  cases  of  the 
moral  sense,  and  not  one  of  the  natural. t  It  also  adds  point  to  the 
sentence  by  carr3ung  out  the  personification  of  the  day  to  the  end. 

‘  Sufficient  for  the  day  is  its  own  malignity  or  mischief  without  seek¬ 
ing  to  incur  that  of  others.’^  It  cannot  be  denied,  however,  that  the 
other  is  a  simpler  and  more  natural  construction,  and  the  argument 
against  it  from  New  Testament  usage,  may  perhaps  be  outweighed  by 


I 


*  The  latest  critical  editions  follow  the  Vatican  and  several  other  uncial 
copies,  in  omitting  the  article  and  simply  reading,  for  itself. 

t  See  Acts  8,  22.  Rom.  1,  29.  1  Cor.  5,  8.  14,  20.  Rph.  4j  81.  Col.  3,  8.  Tit.  3, 
3.  James  1,  21.  1  Pet.  2, 1,  16. 

X  Wicl.  It  sutficelh  to  the  day  his  own  malice.  Tynd.  The  day  present  hath 
ever  enough  of  his  own  trouble.  Geneva  B.  The  day  present  hath  ever  enough 
to  do  with  its  own  grief,  Cranm.  Sullicient  unto  the  day  is  the  travail  thereof. 


MATTHEW  7,1.2. 


193 


the  twofold  application  of  the  cognate  adjective,*  and  by  the  occa¬ 
sional  occurrence  of  the  noun  itself,  to  denote  sufiering  in  the  clas¬ 
sics,  the  Septuagint.  and  the  Apocrypha. f  The  evil  thereof^  means 
nothing  more  than  its  evil,  this  possessive  pronoun  never  being  used 
in  our  translation  ;  but  the  former  version  gives  a  more  sonorous  close, 
retaining,  at  the  same  time,  the  order  of  the  words  in  Greek. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

The  first  part  of  this  chapter  seems  to  be  addressed  to  the  censori¬ 
ous  Pharisees,  who  were  disposed  to  treat  with  a  contemptuous  rigour, 
the  disciples  of  our  Saviour,  but  are  warned  that  he  would  judge 
themselves  with  equal  severity,  and  that  the  correction  of  their  own 
faults  should  precede,  if  not  prevent,  the  condemnation  of  others 
(1-5).  He  then  warns  his  followers  not  to  expose  themselves  or 
the  gospel  to  the  spiteful  or  ignorant  contempt  of  such  men,  without 
evident  necessity  (6).  From  this  digression  he  returns  to  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  provision  for  the  future  (5,  34),  and  teaches  them  to  banish 
unbelieving  cares  by  a  childlike  trust  in  God,  expressed  in  prayer,  with 
a  cheering  assurance  of  success,  derived  from  God’s  paternal  kindness, 
as  compared  with  that  of  men  (7-11).  He  then,  in  winding  up  his 
whole  discourse,  reverts  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  and  prophets 
(5,  17),  showing  how  they  are  to  do  their  part  (12) ;  exhorts  them  to 
pursue  the  course  of  right  and  safety,  however  self-denying  (13.  14); 
warns  them  against  their  faithless  spiritual  leaders,  proved  to  be  so  by 
their  influence  on  others  (15-19)  ;  against  false  profession  in  their  own 
case  (20-23)  ;  and  against  the  fatal  error  of  hearing  without  practising 
what  he  had  taught  them  (2-1—27).  To  the  sermon  on  the  Mount, 
which  closes  here,  is  added  an  account  of  its  effect  upon  the  peo¬ 
ple  (28.  29). 

1.  Judge  notj  that  ye  he  not  judged. 

2.  For  with  what  judgment  ye  judge,  ye  shall  be 
judged  :  and  with  what  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be 
measured  to  you  again. 

It  is  commonly  agreed  that  the  connection  of  this  chapter  with  the 
foregoing  context,  and  of  its  parts  among  themselves,  is  less  clear  than 

*  Compare  Rom.  13,  3.  and  14,  20.  1  Cor.  13,  5.  and  15,  83.  Rev.  2,  2. 
and  16,  2. 

t  Thucyd.  3,  58.  Ecc.  7,  14.  1  Mace.  10,  46. 

9 


>v. 


194 


MATTHEW  7,1.2. 


in  the  previous  divisions  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Hence  some 
abandon  the  idea  of  connection  altogether,  and  reuard  what  follows  as 
an  incoherent,  or  at  least  a  desultory  series  of  advices,  either  added  by 
our  Lord,  as  a  conclusion  to  the  more  continuous  discourse  which  he 
had  been  delivering,  or  thrown  together  by  the  historian,  as  a  further 
sample  of  his  mode  of  teaching,  not  at  any  one  time,  but  on  dilferent  oc¬ 
casions.  But  besides  the  general  presumption  against  such  compila¬ 
tions,  and  in  favour  of  a  regular  connected  train  of  thought,  there  is  a 
special  presumption  of  the  same  kind  here,  arising  from  the  ease  with 
which  the  thread  of  the  discourse  can  be  detected  and  maintained  un¬ 
broken  in  the  two  preceding  chapters.  It  is  highly  improbable  from  all 
analogy,  as  well  as  from  the  general  laws  of  thought  and  language,  that 
a  composition,  so  methodical  to  this  point,  should  at  once  and  altogether 
be  deprived  of  its  coherence.  It  becomes  us.  therefore,  who  have  found 
an  obvious  plan  and  purpose  in  the  previous  part,  to  take  for  granted 
that  it  still  exists  and  governs  the  remainder  of  the  sermon,  though  it 
may  not  be  so  easily  discerned,  and  ought  not  to  be  violently  made  out 
by  gratuitous  assumptions  or  unnatural  constructions  of  the  language. 
It  is  also  proper  in  such  doubtful  cases  to  allow  a  certain  latitude  of 
judgment  and  liberty  of  choice  between  the  different  hypotheses  which 
may  be  urged  with  any  show  of  plausibility.  Among  these,  one  sup¬ 
poses  that  our  Lord  here  turns  to  another  class  of  those  who  were  im¬ 
patiently  expecting  the  Messiah’s  kingdom,  but  with  false  conceptions 
of  its  nature,  and  corrects  their  errors  as  he  had  before  corrected  those 
of  other  classes  (see  above,  on  5,  3).  The  class  here  addressed  would 
then  be  that  of  the  censorious  moralists,  whose  whole  religion  lay  in 
finding  fault  with  others,  and  who  may  have  anticipated  ample  scope 
for  the  indulgence  of  this  morbid  appetite  amidst, the  changes  which  the 
church  was  now  to  undergo.  As  this  is  a  character  which  shows  it¬ 
self  in  every  time  and  place,  and  one  that  was  particularly  apt  to  be 
engendered  by  the  pharisaical  abuse  of  the  Mosaic  system,  there  is 
nothing  in  the  fact  assumed  by  this  interpretation  that  is  antecedently 
or  intrinsically  improbable.  Nor  is  there  much  weight  in  the  sole  ob¬ 
jection,  that  if  such  had  been  our  Lord’s  design,  he  would  have  carried 
it  out  earlier  in  the  discourse,  and  in  immediate  connection  with  the 
other  misconceptions  there  corrected.  This  would  be  to  demand,  not 
mere  coherence  in  the  thoughts,  but  a  rhetorical  preciseness  and  for¬ 
mality  of  method  altogether  out  of  keeping  with  the  free  and  natural, 
though  rational  arrangement  of  his  thoughts  and  language,  which 
would  not  be  in  the  least  disturbed  by  such  a  scpai  ation  of  the  topics, 
especially  if  suited  to  promote  the  general  design  of  his  discourse,  or  if 
susceptible  of  explanation  from  the  known  or  even  the  conjectured  cir¬ 
cumstances  of  the  case.  Such  explanation  is  afforded  by  the  supposi¬ 
tion.  which  is  nothing  more,  and  not  to  be  relied  on  as  a  certain  fact, 
that  on  this  as  on  many  similar  occasions,  there  were  foes  as  well 
as  friends  among  his  hearers,  representing  the  great  Pharisaical  in¬ 
terest  and  ready  to  express  their  disagreement  and  contempt  by  looks 
if  not  by  language.  That  this  is  no  imaginary  state  of  things,  we  learn 
from  Luke’s  explicit  statement  on  a  subsequent  occasion,  that  as  he 


MATTHEW  7,1.2. 


195 


spake  unto  the  people,  ‘'the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  began  to  urge  him 
vehemently,  and  to  provoke  him  to  speak  of  many  things  ”  (Luke  11, 
53),  and  again,  ‘‘  the  Pharisees  also,  who  were  covetous,  heard  all  these 
things,  and  they  derided  him”  (Luke  16,14).  This  parallel  is  the 
more  exact,  because  among  the  things  then  spoken  and  derided  was  the 
ver}^  doctrine  about  serving  God  and  Mammon  which  is  laid  down  here 
in  the  preceding  chapter  (6,  24).  If  they  derided  it  at  one  time,  why 
not  at  another  ?  And  if  at  this  time,  what  can  be  more  natui  al 
than  the  assumption,  that  our  Lord,  perceiving  their  contempt,  both 
of  his  doctrine  and  disciples,  addresses  them  directly  in  the  first 
part  of  this  chapter,  though  in  terms  admitting  of  a  wider  appli¬ 
cation.  That  the  primary  object  of  address  was  rather  a  censorious 
enemy  than  even  a  mistaken  friend,  is  rendered  still  more  probable, 
though  not  entirely  certain,  by  the  harsh  term  applied  to  him  in  v.  5, 
which  we  shall  examine  more  particulaily  when  we  reach  it.  The  first 
verse,  however,  as  in  5,  21.  27.  32.  33.  38.  43.  6, 1.  7.  is  in  the  plural 
form,  making  it  a  general  rule  or  admonition;  while  the  personal  appli¬ 
cation  in  the  singular  number  follows  in  the  next  verse.  The  reap¬ 
pearance  of  this  somewhat  singular  interchange  of  numbers,  which  has 
been  already  noted  as  a  characteristic  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
affords  a  further  proof,  if  any  were  required,  that  the  passage  now  be¬ 
fore  us  forms  part  of  a  systematic  whole,  and  of  the  same  which  we 
have  been  considering,  and  not  of  a  fragmentar}^  miscellaneous  compi¬ 
lation  added  to  it.  The  first  clause  contains  a  prohibition  or  dissuasion 
and  a  motive  for  it,  which  is-then  more  fully  stated  in  the  second  verse. 
There  can  of  course  be  no  allusion  either  to  official  judgment  and  ju¬ 
dicial  functions,  or  to  the  mere  formation  of  opinion,  both  which  lie  be¬ 
yond  the  reason  here  suggested  for  not  judging,  and  neither  of  which 
could  be  forbidden  absolutely.  The  reference  must,  therefore,  be  to 
something  intermediate  between  these,  something  neither  unavoidable, 
like  personal  opinion,  nor  obligatory,  like  official  judgments,  but  de¬ 
pendent  on  the  will  and  dispositions  of  the  person  judging.  This  ap¬ 
plies  exactly  to  voluntary  and  censorious  judgments  upon  others,  not 
required  by  personal  or  public  duty.  That  ye  l)e  not  judged^  assigns 
the  reason  why  they  should  not  sit  in  judgment  upon  others.  If  5mu 
wmuld  not  be  judged,  do  not  judge  ‘yourselves.’  The  only  question 
of  importance  is,  what  judgment  is  referred  to  in  the  second  clause, 
that  of  man,  or  that  of  God  ?  If  the  former,  this  is  a  prudeiitial  maxim, 
warning  us  that  we  may  look  for  treatment  at  the  hands  of  others 
similar  to  that  which  they  received  from  us.  However  true  this  may 
be,  and  important  as  a  rule  of  worldly  wisdom,  and  however  it  may 
seem  to  correspond  to  the  positive  command  in  v.  12,  it  is  not  the  kind 
of  motive  commonly  presented  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  or  else¬ 
where  in  our  Lord’s  discourses.  This  appears  to  recommend  another 
answer  to  the  question,  namely,  that  the  judgment  against  which  we 
arc  here  warned  is  that  of  God  himself ;  not  merely  as  it  is  to  be  pro¬ 
nounced  hereafter,  but  as  it  is  conceived  and  executed  now.  The  mean¬ 
ing  then  is,  ‘  be  not  forward  to  condemn  the  character  and  acts  of 
others ;  for  a  still  severer  standard  will  be  hiithfully  applied  to  your 


196 


MATTHEW  7,2.3. 


own  by  a  judge  who  cannot  err.’  We  are  not  here  taught  that  by 
shunning  such  censorious  judgments  of  others,  we  can  wholly  avoid 
that  of  God  in  our  own  case,  but  simply  that  the  latter  will  be  ren¬ 
dered  more  severe  by  an  uncharitable  rigour  towards  our  neighbours. 
(See  above,  on  6. 14.  15.)  This  is  more  fully  set  forth  in  the  second 
verse,  where  we  learn  that  the  same  high  standard,  which  all  men  re¬ 
cognize  in  judging  of  their  neighbours,  will  be  faithfully  applied  to  their 
own  conduct  in  the  divine  judgment.  This  presupposes  a  familiar  fact 
in  the  experience  of  men,  to  wit,  that  however  lenient  they  may  be  in 
judging  their  own  acts  and  motives,  they  are  always  exacting  in  their 
estimate  of  others.  Even  he  who  denies  all  moral  distinctions  in  the 
abstract  or  in  reference  to  his  own  responsibility,  will  eagerly  resent 
and  punish  any  wrong  or  insult  offered  to  himself.  Judgment  and 
measure  are  literal  and  metaphorical  expressions  for  the  same  thing,  to 
wit,  the  mode  of  estimating  character  and  conduct. 

3.  And  wliy  beholdest  thou  the  mote  that  is  in  thy 
brother's  eye,  but  considerest  not  the  beam  that  is  in 
thine  own  eye  ? 

Here,  as  frequently  before,  the  exchange  of  the  plural  for  the  sin¬ 
gular  announces  a  more  close  and  pointed  application  of  the  general 
rule  to  individual  cases.  The  change  is  still  more  striking  in  the 
present  instance  if,  as  was  hinted  to  be  not  improbable,  this  part  of 
the  discourse  was  immediately  suggested  by  the  presence  and  the 
looks,  if  not  the  words  and  actions,  of  censorious  Pharisees,  to  one  of 
whom,  a  real  or  ideal  person,  the  discourse  is  now  suddenly  addressed. 
And,  or  hut,  if  this  be  so,  if  thou  art  to  be  tried  by  the  same  rule  and 
measured  by  the  same  standard,  why  art  thou  so  censorious  and  ex¬ 
acting  as  to  others,  when  thy  own  defects  are  not  only  equal  but  far 
greater  ?  This  idea  is  expressed,  perhaps  with  some  allusion  to  the 
figures  of  6.  22.  23,  under  the  image  of  an  eye  disordered  by  the  pre¬ 
sence  of  a  foreign  body,  such  as  a  dry  particle  of  wood,  in  one  case  a 
minute  chip  or  mere  splinter,  compared  with  which  the  other  may  be 
hyperbolically  called  a  beam.  The  word  mote,  used  in  all  the  Eng¬ 
lish  versions,  is  well  suited  to  express  the  difference  of  size,  but  not 
the  close  correspondence  as  to  substance  or  material,  suggested  by  the 
usage  of  the  Greek  word,  which  although  it  properly  means  some¬ 
thing  dry,  is  specially  applied  by  Herodotus  and  Aristophanes  to  dry 
sticks  and  twigs,  such  as  birds  use  in  the  making  their  nests.  Be- 
Jioldest  is  in  all  the  other  English  versions  seest ;  but  the  true  sense  is 
that  of  looking  at,  of  observing,  taking  notice  of  as  a  voluntary  and 
officious  act.  The  original  construction  is  like  that  in  5, 16,  the  mote, 
the  {one)  in  the  eye  of  thy  brother,  not  merely  of  thy  fellow-man,  but 
of  one  sustaining  a  more  intimate  relation  to  thee,  social  or  domestic. 
(See  above  on  5,22.  23.  24.  47.)  The  interrogation  implies  that  there 
was  no  need  of  observing  it  at  all,  which  shows  again  that  the  judg¬ 
ment  here  condemned  is  not  official  but  officious.  But.  on  the  other 

j  ^ 


MATTHEW  7,  3.  4.  5. 


197 


hand,  in  reference  to  thy  own  case.  Considerest^  an  emphatic  com¬ 
pound  verb  in  Greek,  analogous  to  that  in  6,  28,  although  derived 
from  an  entirely  different  root  and  meaning  primarily  to  understand 
thoroughly,  and  then,  as  a  necessary  means,  to  observe  attentively. 
The  antithesis  between  the  verbs  is  not  to  be  neglected.  The  censor 
had  no  occasion  even  to  look  at  or  to  see  the  slight  obstruction  in  his 
brother’s  eye,  but  every  reason  to  observe  and  scrutinize  the  great  one 
in  his  own.  The  hj’perbole  in  beam  is  not  to  be  explained  away  or 
softened  down  by  any  modification  in  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  word, 
which  is  the  same  in  Attic  and  Homeric  usage.  The  case  supposed  is 
not  a  real  but  an  ideal  one,  and  the  impossibility  of  this  trait  serves  to 
strengthen  the  impression  of  a  vast  disparity.  The  language  is  pro¬ 
verbial,  as  in  19,  24.  23,  24,  the  hyperbole,  instead  of  belonging  to  the 
artificial  language  of  rhetoric,  being  really  most  frequent  in  the  dialect 
of  common  life. 

4.  Or  how  wilt  thou  say  to  thy  brother,  Let  me  pull 
out  the  mote  out  of  thine  eye  ;  and,  behold,  a  beam  (is) 
in  thine  own  eye  ? 

This  verse  presents  another  aspect  of  the  case,  introduced  by  the 
disjunctive  (or).  How  wilt  thou  say  f  a  more  correct  translation  than 
the  sayest  thou  of  all  the  other  English  versions  which  mistake  the 
future  (fpels)  for  a  present  form.  The  import  of  the  question  is,  how 
canst  thou  have  the  face  to  say  ?  How  canst  thou  be  so  inconsistent 
and  self-ignorant  or  self-indulgent  as  to  say  ?  The  prohibition  is  not  one 
derived  from  real  life,  but  a  translation  into  words  of  the  supercilious 
and  censorious  spirit  cherished  by  too  many  moralists.  Let  me  pull 
(Tynd.  suffer  me  to  pluc\  Cranmer,  suffer  me.^  I  loill  pluclc).,  is  in 
Greek  an  imperative  prefixed  to  a  subjunctive,  strictly  meaning,  suffer 
(that)  I  pull  (cast)  out.  The  first  verb  has  the  same  sense  as  in  3, 15, 
where  it  twice  occurs.  (For  its  other  meaning,  see  above,  on  4, 11. 
20.  22.  5,  24.  40.  6, 12.  14.  15.)  Full  oiff  literally,  cast  out  or  expel, 
as  in  V.  22  below  and  often  elsewhere.  The  essential  idea  is  that  of 
forcible  removal.  And  behold.^  an  expression  of  surprise,  introducing 
something  strange  and  unexpected.  (See  above,  on  1,  20.  23.  2, 1. 
9.  13.  19.  3, 10.  Yl .  4, 11.)  As  if  he  had  said,  ‘who  cduldhave  believed 
that  this  man.  so  officious  in  discovering  a  small  speck  in  his  neigh¬ 
bour’s  eye,  has  a  greater  but  an  unobserved  obstruction  in  his  own  ?  ’ 

5.  Thou  hypocrite,  first  cast  out  the  beam  out  of  thine 
own  eye  ;  and  then  shalt  thou  see  clearly  to  cast  out  the 
mote  out  of  thy  brother's  eye. 

Having  pointed  out  by  means  of  the  foregoing  questions  the  ab¬ 
surdity  of  such  officious  meddling,  he  proceeds  in  this  verso  to  pre¬ 
scribe  a  better  course,  with  an  additional  reason  for  it,  i.  e.  over  and 
above  the  one  involved  in  the  inconsistency  and  folly  of  the  contrary 


198 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  7,  5.  6. 

proceeding.  iThoii)  hypocrite^  explained  above  on  6,  2.  5.  16.  a  word 
found  in  the  three  first  Gospels,  once  in  ]\Iark,  four  times  in  Luke,  and 
fifteen  times  in  Matthew.  In  all  these  places,  with  the  possible  ex¬ 
ception  of  Luke  12,  56.  it  is  applied  to  the  unbelieving  Jews,  the 
enemies  of  Christ,  and  is  not  likely  therefore  to  be  here  used  of  his 
followers  and  friends.  This  strengthens  the  assnm.ption  that  the  passage 
now  before  us  has  immediate  reference  to  Pharisees  then  present, 
and  perhaps  cherishing  the  very  spirit  here  translated  into  words  and 
held  up  to  contempt.  At  the  same  time,  the  language  is  so  chosen  as 
to  make  the  lesson  one  of  wider  application,  and  even  more  remotely 
to  charge  with  hypocrisjp  not  only  the  original  offender,  but  all  who  are 
guilty  of  the  same  self-righteous  and  censorious  inconsistency.  Hypo¬ 
crite  has  here  its  proper  sense  of  one  who  acts  a  part,  or  personates  a 
character  not  really  his  own,  to  wit,  that  of  a  rigid  moralist  and  just 
judge,  who  impartially  condemns  sin  where  he  finds  it ;  while  in  fact  he 
indulges  in  himself  a  greater  evil  of  the  same  kind  that  he  mercilessly 
spies  out  and  rebukes  in  others.  The  prevalence  of  this  hypocritical 
morality  among  the  Jews,  and  the  obstruction  wdiich  it  offered  to  the 
progress  of  the  Gospel,  may  be  learned  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
where  the  second  chapter,  specially  addressed  to  Jews  (see  v.  17),  is 
an  expansion  of  the  very  thought  suggested  in  the  verse  before  us. 
Instead  of  formally  exposing  the  hj^pocrisy  and  inconsistency  of  such 
a  practice,  our  Lord  attains  the  same  end  more  impressively  by  telling 
the  censorious  hypocrite  in  what  Avay  the  reproach  might  be  avoided, 
and  his  judgments  at  the  same  time  rendered  more  correct.  Hirst^ 
before  condemning  others,  sit  in  judgment  on  thyself.  This  idea  is 
conveyed  by  a  continued  use  of  the  same  figures  introduced  in  the 
preceding  verse.  And  then,  when  thou  hast  thus  begun  at  home  and 
brought  thy  own  sins  to  as  strict  a  standard  as  the  one  applied  to 
others.  See  clearly,  literally,  see  through,  i.  e.  through  all  obstructions 
and  concealments.  This  is  mentioned  as  a  further  incidental  benefit  to 
be  derived  from  an  impartial  self-examination  and  self-judgment,  but 
not  as  the  main  reason  why  it  should  be  undertaken.  It  is  not  merel}^, 
nor  even  chiefly  on  account  of  the  obscuring  influence  of  sin  upon  the 
moral  judgment,  that  we  are  required  to  condemn  it  in  ourselves  before 
attempting  to  discover  it  in  others  ;  but  because  it  concerns  us  more, 
and  is  essential  to  our  own  salvation.  At  the  same  time  it  is  none  the 
less  true  that  the  process  of  self- scrutiny  and  self-arraignment  does  pre¬ 
pare  the  mind  for  similar  functions  in  the  case  of  others,  when  we  are 
legitimately  called  to  them.  But  no  amount  of  such  improvement  in 
capacity  to  judge  aright,  wdll  justify  an  uncalled  and  censorious  inter¬ 
ference  with  the  character  of  others,  which  is  the  error  here  imme¬ 
diately  in  question. 

6.  Give  not  that  which  is  holy  unto  the  dogs,  neither 
cast  ye  your  pearls  before  swine,  lest  they  trample  them 
under  their  feet,  and  turn  again  and  rend  you. 

If  the  view  just  taken  of  our  Lord’s  immediate  purpose  in  the  five 


199 


MATTHEW  7,6. 

preceding  verscs-,be  correct,  the  natural  connection  with  the  sixth 
verse  seems  to  be,  that  he  here  turns  from  the  ‘  h3^pocrite,’  addressed 
in  vs.  3-5,  to  his  own  disciples,  and  exhorts  them  not  to  expose  them¬ 
selves,  and  that  wherewith  tho}^  were  intrusted,  to  the  ignorant  or 
wicked  scorn  of  unbelievers,  without  obvious  necessity  or  urgent  duty. 
With  a  boldness  and  severity,  which  only  his  omniscience  and  supreme 
authority  could  justify,  and  which  is,  therefore,  no  example  for  his 
followers,  except  to  so  far  as  they  repeat  or  expound  his  own  words, 
he  describes  the  impure  and  ferocious  enemies  of  truth  and  of  his 
kingdom  by  the  hateful  epithets  of  dog  and  sicine,  the  two  species  of 
domesticated  animals  for  which  the  Orientals  had  the  greatest  abhor¬ 
rence.  The  Oriental  dog  is  more  gregarious  and  savage  than  the 
western,  less  attached  to  man,  and,  being  chiefly  fed  on  garbage,  more 
disgusting  in  its  habits  and  appearance.  Hence  the  dog  is  chiefly 
spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  an  object  or  expression  of  contempt.  To 
swine,  besides  their  natural  and  universal  habits,  there  attached  a 
religious  odium  as  an  unclean  animal,  excluded  not  only  from  the 
altar  but  the  table.  The  two  may  either  be  promiscuously  blended  as 
a  joint  type  of  all  that  is  abhorrent  in  human  character  ;  or  so  far 
separated  that  the  dog  shall  represent  the  class  of  violent  and  savage 
foes,  the  swine  those  peculiarly  impure  and  degraded.  In  favour  of 
the  former  explanation  is  the  fact,  that  both  these  species  were  re¬ 
garded  by  the  Hebrews  as  unclean,  and  that  both  are  almost  equally 
disgusting  in  the  east,  and  then,  that  the  very  structure  of  the  sentence 
makes  it  difficult  to  separate  them  altogether.  The  dogs  and  swine 
difler  as  to  definiteness  onty  in  the  version ;  the  article  standing  be¬ 
fore  both  in  Greek.  That  icMcTi  is  holy^  T^mdale’s  periphrastic  ver¬ 
sion  of  the  holy^  or  the  holy  {thing) ^  here  meaning  no  doubt  any  thing 
made  sacred  by  appropriation  to  God’s  service,  such  as  sacrificial  food, 
which  is  liere  suggested  by  the  context  (see  above,  on  4,  6.  5,  25),  as 
well  as  by  the  use  of  the  word  give^  while  in  the  other  clause,  where 
pearls  not  food  are  mentioned,  the  expression  is  to  cast  before.  There 
is  no  need  of  supposing  an  allusion  to  the  similarity  between  pearls 
and  any  kind  of  food  for  swine,  and  an  intention  to  deceive  them.  The 
antithesis  is  clearly  between  things  the  most  highly  valued  among 
men,  and  animals  incapable  of  using  or  enjoying  them.  The  last 
clause  gives  the  reason  of  this  prohibition,  i.  e.  a  reason  in  ad¬ 
dition  to  the  one  arising  from  the  contrariety  of  nature.  Lest  is  in 
Greek  a  compound  particle,  and  strictly  means,  lest  ever  (or  at  any 
time)  ;  but  later  usage  gradually  weakened  the  reference  to  time  and 
left  that  of  contingency  the  prominent  idea.  Under  their  feet.^  literally, 
in  their  feet an  idiomatic  phrase,  which  may  mean  in  the  use  of  them 
(see  above,  on  3,  11.  5,  13),  which  is  substantially  equivalent  to  with 
them,  or  by  means  of  them.  Or  in  may  be  intended  to  suggest  more 
strongly  the  incongruous  confusion  of  the  costly  pearls  amidst  the 
food  and  feet  of  the  filthy  swine.  Turning  away  from  what  they 
cannot  taste  or  value,  or  perhaps  turning  on  you,  as  the  object  of 
attack.  Rend,  a  Greek  vei-b,  wliich  strictly  means  to  break,  but  is 
applied  by  Hilschylus  to  the  tearing  of  a  veil  or  robe,  and  by  Pindar  to 


200 


MATTHEW  7,6.7. 

the  wounding  of  the  human  body.  Some  suppose  this  last  clause  to 
refer  speciticallj  to  the  dogs,  a  construction  which  has  even  been  ex¬ 
pressed  in  some  of  the  old  English  versions  (Tyndale  and  Ci-anmer, 
and  the  other  turn  again).  Eut  most  interpreters  either  restrict  it  to 
the  swine,  as  often  savage  and  always  voracious,  or  suppose  both 
species  to  be  meant,  the  distinction  having  been  lost  sight  of.  The 
essential  ideas  are  those  of  blind  contempt  for  what  is  really  most 
sacred  and  most  precious,  and  ferocious  enmity  towards  those  from 
whom  it  is  received  or  offered.  The  lesson  taught  is,  that  even  saving 
truth  must  be  withheld  from  those  who  would  certainly  reject  it  with 
contempt  and  savage  hatred.  As  cases  of  this  sort  are  rare,  and  not 
to  be  assumed  without  necessity,  the  passage  furnishes  no  pretext  for 
an  indolent  or  cowardly  suppression  of  the  truth  in  order  to  avoid  a 
personal  danger.  The  primary  reason  is  the  trampling  of  the  pearls 
under  feet;  the  risk  of  laceration  is  but  secondary.  Where  there  is 
no  danger  of  the  gospel  being  treated  with  a  blasphemous  contempt, 
the  mere  exposure  of  its  preachers  or  professors  to  the  violence  of  such 
despisers  does  not  seem  to  warrant  a  withholding  of  the  message. 

7.  Ask,  and  it  shall  he  given  you  ;  seek,  and  ye  shall 
find  ;  knock,  and  it  shall  be  opened  unto  you  : 

This  is  one  of  the  abrupt  transitions  here  assumed  by  those  who 
relinquish  or  repudiate  the  attempt  to  trace  an  unbroken  train  of 
thought  or  thread  of  the  discourse.  Admitting,  as  before,  the  com¬ 
parative  obscurity  of  the  connection,  and  attempting  only  a  conjectural 
solution  of  the  problem,  we  may  at  least  assist  the  memory,  if  not  the 
understanding,  by  continuing  the  previous  assumption  or  suggestion, 
as  to  the  possible  occasion  and  immediate  object  of  address  in  the  pre¬ 
ceding  verses.  If,  as  we  have  there  supposed  without  affirming  it, 
that  passage  has  respect  to  the  censorious  contempt  of  Pharisees  theU 
present,  which  became  apparent  at  this  stage  of  the  discourse,  there  is 
nothing  to  forbid,  though  nothing  to  require,  the  further  supposition, 
that  as  soon  as  this  interruption,  so  to  speak,  had  been  disposed  of  he 
resumes  the  thread  which  had  been  dropped  or  broken  at  the  close  of 
the  sixth  chapter,  and  completes  what  he  had  there  left  unfinished,  in 
relation  to  the  heathenish  and  Christian  method  of  providing  for  the 
future.  The  absolute  and  peremptory  prohibition  of  extreme  solici¬ 
tude  and  anxious  care  might  seem  to  the  disciples,  as  it  has  appeared 
to  some  interpreters,  to  cut  off  all  endeavours  to  secure  the  divine 
bounty  and  protection,  upon  which  they  were  required  so  implicitly  to 
trust.  But  as  Augustin  said,  in  answer  to  this  exegetical  misgiving, 
that  trust  and  prayer  are  not  at  variance  but  coincident,  the  one  being 
only  the  expression  of  the  other  ;  so  our  Lord  himself  according  to  the 
view  now  taken  hj'^pothetically,  may  be  understood  as  guarding  in  this 
verse  against  the  same  misconception.  Having  pointedly  forbidden 
unbelieving  anxieties  in  general  (6,  31),  and  more  particularly  their  ac¬ 
cumulation  by  far-reaching  apprehensions  and  forebodings  (6,  34),  he 
may  now,  at  least  without  unnatural  perversion  of  his  plan  or  language, 


201 


MATTHEW  7,7-10. 

be  supposed  to  add  that  as  the  remedy  for  such  forbidden  cares  is  faith 
in  God’s  paternal  love,  so  the  source  as  well  as  the  expression  of 
that  faith  is  found  in  prayer.  ‘Instead  of  carking  cares  about  the 
future,  as  if  all  depended  upon  chance  or  fate,  ask,  him  who  can 
alone  provide  for  you,  and  it  shall  be  given  you.’  This  is  of  course  to 
be  restricted  and  explained  by  the  consideration  that  all  true  prayer, 
being  prompted  by  divine  grace,  is  in  strict  accordance  with  the  divine 
will.  The  same  thing  is  then  expressed  in  other  forms,  one  literal,  the 
other  metaphorical.  Seeh^  not  as  the  heathen  seek  (G,  32)  but  as  he 
had  already  taught  his  followers  to  seek  (6,  33),  giving  his  cause  the 
preference,  but  even  in  promoting  it  securing  their  own  interests,  for 
time  as  well  as  for  eternity.  The  last  clause  reiterates  this  thought 
a  third  time  under  the  image  of  a  door,  behind  which  or  within  which 
lie  the  mercies  that  we  need,  and  at  which  we  are,  therefoi-e,  called  to 
knock,  as  the  ancient  and  customary  mode  of  gaining  entrcmce. 

8.  For  every  one  that  asketh,  receiveth  ;  and  he  that 
seeketh,  findeth  :  and  to  him  that  knocketh,  it  shall  be 
opened. 

Lest  the  strong  but  general  assurance  of  the  preceding  verse 
should  be  neglected  as  a  customary  or  unmeaning  form  of  speech, 
it  is  repeated  here  in  terms  still  stronger  and  more  universal,  not  as 
a  promise  to  be  verified  in  future,  but  as  a  fact  of  actual  experience. 
The  change  from  the  future  to  the  present,  therefore,  is  significant,  and 
not  to  be  neglected  in  the  exposition.  ‘  I  say,  not  only  that  you  shall 
receive  hereafter  what  you  ask,  but  tliat,  in  point  of  fact,  whoever 
does  ask,  does  receive  accordingly^’  That  is  to  say,  believing  prayer 
is  never  vain  or  unsuccessful,  and  the  knowledge  of  this  truth  is 
among  the  most  efiicient  antidotes  to  sceptical  misgivings  and  exces¬ 
sive  care.  The  force  of  this  remarkable  assurance  is  enhanced  in  this, 
connection  by  its  formal  correspondence  to  the  threefold  ])romise  in 
the  verse  preceding,  which  is  very  slightly,  if  at  all  impaired  by  the 
reappearance  of  the  future  in  the  last  clause  {shall  oe  O'pened')^  which 
may  be  intended  to  remind  us  that  the  general  fact  here  stated  is  a 
pledge  that  it  shall  continue  to  be  so,  and,  therefore,  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  a  promise.*  The  future  of  the  common  text,  like  that  in  v. 
8,  may  be  either  construed  with  a  noun  understood  (door,  gate),  or 
impersonally,  as  in  our  version. 

9.  Or  what  man  is  there  of  you,  whom  if  his  son 
ask  bread,  will  he  give  him  a  stone? 

10.  Or  if  he  ask  a  fish,  will  he  give  him  a  serpent  ? 

*  Even  this  appearance  of  irregularity  is  done  away  if  we  adopt  the  reading 
of  the  Codex  Vaticanus  {duolycTai)^  as  received  into  the  text  by  Lachmann. 


202 


MATTHEW  7,10.11.12. 

Lest  even  the  preceding  declaration  should  not  satisfy  them  that  it 
is  so,  he  now  shows  them  that  it  must  be  so ;  a  necessity  arising  from 
the  fatherly  benevolence  of  God,  and  proved  by  the  effect  of  analogous 
affections  in  the  case  of  sinful,  fallen  man.  The  argument,  like  that  in 
6,  26-30,  is  from  less  to  greater.  if  this  is  not  sufficient  to  con¬ 
vince  you,  view  the  matter  in  another  light.  The  favourite  form  of 
interrogation  is  again  resumed,  implying  strong  negation.  Who  is 
there  ?  is  equivalent  to  ^  there  is  no  one.’  Of  you^  from  among  jmu, 
one  of  those  now  present.  What  man^  i.  e.  what  mere  man,  with  the 
ordinary  instincts  of  humanity  about  him.  The  original  order  of  the 
words  is,  Who  is  there  among  you^  a  man  (or  though  a  mere  man)? 
The  grammatical  authorities  suppose  two  questions,  or  two  forms  of 
question,  to  be  here  confounded.  But  however  intricate  the  syntax, 
there  is  perfect  clearness  in  the  sense.  Breaf  probably  the  round 
cake  now  used  in  the  east,  and  bearing  some  resemblance  to  a  smooth, 
flat  stone.  The  same  resemblance  may  be  traced  between  some  kinds 
of  serpent  and  some  kinds  of  fish.  The  form  of  the  interrogation  in 
both  cases,  is  that  emplo3'ed  in  Greek  when  a  negative  answer  is 
expected,  and  therefore  nearly  equivalent  to  saying,  he  will  not,  will 
he? 


'  11.  If  ye  tlien,  being  evil,  know  bow  to  give  good 
gifts  unto  your  children,  bow  mucli  more  shall  your 
Father  which  is  in  heaven  give  good  things  to  them  that 
ask  him  ? 

This  is  the  formal  argument  or  inference  from  the  facts  indirectly 
stated  in  the  two  preceding  verses.  This  connection  is  indicated  by 
the  therefore.  Ye,  being  evil,  i.  e.  ye  mere  men,  and  fallen,  sinful 
men.  Know  (how)  is  not  simpl}^  equivalent  to  cari,  as  rendered  in  the 
older  English  versions,  but  suggests  the  distinct  idea  that  they  under¬ 
stood  the  matter  from  their  own  experience.  Good  gifts,  in  reference 
to  this  life,  and  in  opposition  to  the  evil  gifts  just  mentioned.  How 
much  more,  the  difference  is  not  defined,  being  indeed  infinite.  Your 
Father,  the  (one)  in  heaven,  an  essential  description  here,  because  the 
argument  itself  is  one  from  the  parental  love  of  men  to  that  of  God. 
Shall  give,  or  certainly  will  give,  must  give,  from  his  very  nature,  and 
the  relation  which  he  bears  to  all  believers,  as  his  spiritual  offspring. 
Good  (things),  a  mere  abbreviation  of  the  phrase  good  gifts,  in  the 
preceding  clause.  The  absolute  use  of  the  adjective  without  the  sub¬ 
stantive,  is  much  more  frequent  in  the  Greek  than  in  the  English 
idiom.  To  them  that  ash  him,  literalbq  to  those  ashing  him,  a  phrase 
which  seems  not  only  to  suggest  the  indispensable  condition  of  God’s 
favours,  but  to  bring  back  this  part  of  the  discourse  to  the  point  from 
which  it  started  (in  v.  7),  the  necessity  of  prayer  as  a  preventive  of 
unbelieving  and  excessive  care. 


12.  Therefore  all  things  whatsoever  ye  would  that 


MATTHEW  7,12. 


203 


men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them  ;  for  this 
is  the  law  and  the  prophets. 

The  connection  is  more,  difficult  to  trace  at  this  point  than  at  any 
other  in  the  whole  discourse ;  and  yet  the  supposition  of  an  abrupt 
transition  seems  precluded  by  the  logical  connective  {therefore).  As 
we  have  neither  right  nor  reason  to  assume  that  this  is  used  without 
a  purpose,  and  as  sound  philology  condemns  all  tampering  with  its 
meaning,  we  are  under  the  necessity  of  looking  for  some  natural  if  not 
very  obvious  association  with  the  previous  context.  The  prima  facie 
meaning  of  the  language  is,  that  because  God  is  more  disposed  to  give 
what  is  good  than  earthly  parents  to  their  children,  therefore,  Christ’s 
disciples  ought  to  do  to  others  what  they  would  that  others  should  do 
to  them.  It  must  be  admitted  that  although  the  premises  and  the 
conclusion  are  both  clear,  the  logical  connection  is  obscure.  One  of 
the  latest  commentators  has  attempted  to  establish  a  connection  by 
departing  from  the  old  and  universal  understanding  of  the  verse  before 
us,  which  refers  even  so  to  the  preceding  clause,  and  makes  it  mean,  as 
they  do,  or  as  you  wish  that  they  should  do,  to  you.  The  writer 
here  referred  to,  on  the  contrary,  refers  it  to  the  verse  preceding,  and 
supposes  it  to  mean,  as  God  does,  i.  e.  freely  and  abundantly.  ‘  There¬ 
fore,  because  God  thus  gives,  do  ye  in  like  manner  give  to  others  what¬ 
soever  ye  desire  that  they  should  do  to  you.’  This  ingenious  con¬ 
struction  has  the  great  advantage  of  establishing  a  logical  connection 
and  removing  all  appearance  of  abruptness.  The  objections  to  it  are, 
that  it  puts  a  meaning  on  the  sentence  which  it  probably  has  never  yet 
suggested  to  an  ordinary  reader  ;  and  that  it  makes  the  first  clause  of 
the  verse  before  us  quite  superfluous,  if  not  irrelevant.  If  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  whole  verse  is,  that  men  should  do  to  others  as  God  does  to 
them,  it  is  only  obscured  and  interrupted  by  a  reference  to  what  others 
do  or  ought  to  do  to  them,  which  introduces  an  entirely  difi’erent 
standard  of  comparison.  ‘Whatever  you  desire  men  to  do  to  you, 
do  ye  to  them,  as  God  does,’  is  a  very  confused  sentence  both  in 
thought  and  language.  And  5^et  there  seems  to  be  no  other  method 
of  connecting  this  verse  logically  with  the  one  before  it.  It  is  better, 
therefore,  to  renounce  the  thought  of  so  immediate  a  nexus,  and  to 
seek  for  a  remoter  one.  If  this  is  done,  by  far  the  simplest  and  most 
natural  hypothesis  is  that  which  makes  this  a  deduction  from  the  whole 
preceding  context,  the  beginning  of  a  general  conclusion  to  the  whole 
discourse.  This  is  not  only  agreeable  to  usage  in  all  long  discourses, 
but  particularly  recommended  here  by  the  recurrence  in  the  last 
clause  to  the  language  of  5,  17,  the  text  or  theme  on  which  he  has 
been  preaching.  Having  there  disclaimed  all  purpose  to  invalidate  the 
law  or  the  prophets,  and  shown  that  on  the  contrary  he  came  to 
honour  and  fulfill  them,  he  now  begins  to  wind  up  his  whole  argu¬ 
ment  by  saying  what  the  law  and  prophets  are,  i.  e.  how  they  may  be 
best  fulfilled  in  practice.  Not  by  rigorous  obedience  to  the  letter, 
while  the  spirit  is  denied  or  slighted ;  not  by  doing  as  little  for  others 
and  exacting  as  much  from  them  as  we  can  ;  but  by  doing  to  them  as 


204 


MAT  T  H  E  W  7,  12.  13. 


we  desire  that  they  should  do  to  us ;  in  other  words,  by  loving  our 
neighbour  as  ourself,  which  Christ  has  elsewhere  represented  as  the 
second  great  commandment  of  the  law  (see  below,  on  22,  39),  and 
Paul  as  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  second  table  (Rom.  13,  9). 
This  explanation,  while  it  yields  the  best  sense  and  in  perfect  harmony 
with  other  Scriptures,  requires  no  forced  constructions  or  gratuitous 
assumptions,  but  a  simple  pause  between  the  verses,  and  the  com¬ 
mencement,  in  the  one  before  us,  of  our  Saviour’s  peroration  or  conclu¬ 
sion  of  his  whole  discourse.  As  if  he  had  said :  ‘  This,  then,  is  the 
sum  of  what  1  have  been  saying.  I  have  shown  you  that  I  came  not 
to  destroy  the  law  or  lower  its  demands,  but  to  enforce  them  in  their 
true  and  full  sense.  1  have  taught  you  that  your  alms  and  prayer 
and  fasting,  and  the  whole  course  of  your  lives,  must  have  a  refer¬ 
ence  to  God  and  his  exclusive  service,  that  your  anxious  cares  must 
be  devolved  on  him,  that  you  have  only  to  ask,  as  children  ask  a 
father,  with  still  greater  certainty  of  being  heard,  and  now  I  tell  you, 
in  review  of  all  this,  that  the  only  way  to  keep  the  law  and  prophets  is 
by  doing  to  others  as  you  wish  that  they  should  do  to  you.’  This 
sentence  has  too  commonly  been  insulated  as  an  independent  maxim, 
and  even  as  peculiar  to  the  Christian  system ;  whereas  the  sentiment 
occurs  in  heathen  writers  of  an  earlier  date,*  and  derives  its  value 
here  from  its  connection  with  our  Lord’s  interpretation  of  the  law  and 
his  directions  how  to  keep  it. 

13.  Enter  ye  in  at  the  strait  gate ;  for  wide  (is)  the 
gate,  and  broad  (is)  the  way,  that  leadeth  to  destruction, 
and  many  there  be  which  go  in  thereat : 

What  precedes  was  to  many  a  ‘hard  saying  ’  (compare  John  G,  60)  ; 
or  rather  Christ’s  whole  doctrine,  as  to  the  spiritual  import  and  per¬ 
petual  obligation  of  the  law,  was  unwelcome  and  discouraging,  even  to 
the  mass  of  those  who  were  disposed  to  follow  him.  A  merely  human 
teacher,  even  of  the  truth,  might  have  been  tempted  to  extenuate  the 
difficulty  by  concealment  or  by  softening  the  harshness  of  the  requisi¬ 
tion.  But  our  Lord,  with  merciful  severity,  discloses  the  whole  truth, 
and  far  from  representing  this  painful  self-denial  as  an  accidental  or  a 
temporary  thing,  or  as  dispensable  in  certain  cases,  holds  it  up,  in  the 
conclusion  of  this  great  discourse,  as  something  absolutely  necessary  to 
discipleship  in  his  school  and  to  citizenship  in  his  kingdom.  What  was 
afterwards  announced  by  Paul  and  Barnabas  to  their  Gentile  converts 
as  a  formal  proposition,  that  ‘  we  must  through  much  tribulation  en¬ 
ter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ’  (Acts  14, 22),  is  here  declared  by  Christ 
himself  to  his  Jewish  disciples,  in  the  form  of  an  earnest  exhortation 

*  The  closest  parallel  is  the  dictum  of  Isocrates :  a  ndaxovrcs  vc})  irepav 
opyi^eo-Sf  ravra  toIs  dXXoLs  pj)  rrouLTe.  The  one  ascribed  to  Aristotle  by 
Diogenes  Laertius  is  more  restricted  in  its  scope,  having  reference  to  the  treat¬ 
ment  of  friends.  The  advice  of  iSeneca  {ab  altero  expcctes  alteri  quod feceris)  be¬ 
longs  to  a  later  period. 


MATTHEW  7,13. 


205 


and  a  positive  command.  ‘  Instead  of  drawing  back  because  the  en¬ 
trance  is  so  narrow  and  the  way  so  hard,  strive  the  rather  upon  that 
account  to  enter  in.’  Enter^  go  or  come  in,  i.  e.  into  my  kingdom,  as 
the  new  theocracy,  begun  on  earth  to  be  completed  in  heaven.  At 
(literally,  through)  the  strait  (or  narrow^  not  to  be  confounded  with 
straight^  which  is  the  opposite  of  croohed)  gate^  used  in  Greek  as  in 
English  for  the  entrance  to  a  town  or  large  enclosure,  as  distinguished 
from  the  door  (pvpa)  of  a  house  or  room.  (See  above,  on  6,  6,  and  be¬ 
low,  on  16, 18.  25, 10.  27,  60.)  The  image  here  presented,  therefore,  is 
not  that  of  a  palace  to  be  entered  at  once,  but  of  a  city,  or  perhaps  a 
country,  passes  into  which  the  Greeks  called  gates,  with  a  path  or  road 
beyond  it.  Homer  indeed  uses  way  for  the  way  into,  entrance,  which 
would  make  the  two  things  here  identical.  But  it  seems  more  natural 
and  makes  the  imagery  richer  and  more  varied,  to  distinguish  the  gate, 
or  original  entrance,  from  the  way,  or  path  to  be  afterwards  pursued, 
before  arriving  at  the  final  destination.  Some  reverse  this  order,  which 
is  that  of  the  text  itself  both  in  this  verse  and  the  next,  and  understand 
the  way  to  be  that  leading  to  the  gate,  which  then  denote  respectively 
the  way  or  journey  of  the  present  life,  conducting  to  the  gate  of  death 
or  of  heaven.  But  the  usual  construction  is  more  natural,  which 
makes  the  gate  the  entrance  to  the  way  of  life.  The  narrow  gate,  a 
definite  expression  which  implies  that  there  is  also  a  wide  one.  This 
is  then  explicitly  afiirmed.  Wide  (is)  the  gate,  or  there  is  a  wide 
gate,  so  that  you  must  choose  between  them.  Broad,  in  Greek  a  com¬ 
pound,  meaning  ample  as  to  space  or  room  (Vulg.  spatiosa),  and  show¬ 
ing  that  the  way  is  something  more  extensive  than  the  gate,  to  which 
this  epithet  could  scarcely  be  applied.  This  spacious  way,  with  its 
easy  entrance,  would  be  naturally  more  attractive;  but  the  reason  for 
not  taking  it  is  given  in  the  rest  of  the  description,  the  (one)  leading 
to  destruction.  The  figure  of  two  ways,  to  represent  the  life  and  des¬ 
tination  of  mankind,  is  introduced,  with  great  force  and  beauty,  at  the 
close  of  the  first  Psalm.  Leading,  in  Greek  more  expressive,  leading 
off  ov  away,  suggesting  the  idea  of  great  distance,  and  of  scenes  alto¬ 
gether  difierent  from  the  present.  That  the  sense  is  not  that  of  mis¬ 
leading,  or  leading  out  of  the  right  path,  appears  from  its  application 
in  the  next  verse  to  the  way  of  life.  Destruction,  loss,  perdition,  an 
indefinite  expression,  applicable  both  to  temporal  and  eternal  ruin,  and 
intentionally  used  here  so  as  to  suggest  both,  as  included  in  the  issue 
of  this  wide  and  crowded  pathway.*  A  more  exact  translation  of  the 
last  clause  is,  and  many  (are)  those  entering  (or  going  in)  through  it. 
It  is  not  to  be  avoided,  therefore,  either  because  difficult  of  access  or  un¬ 
frequented,  but  because,  as  Just  before  said,  leading  to  destruction. 
These  last  words  are  not  to  be  connected  with  the  gate  alone,  because 
they  speak  of  going  in ;  for  though  the  gate  was  the  entrance  to  the 
way,  the  way  itself  was  the  entrance  to  destruction. 

*  The  Peshito  here  employs  a  word  substantially  the  same  with  the  Hebrew 
Abaddon,  which  John  introduces  and  translates  in"  Rev.  9,11.  Luther  has  the 
strong  but  too  exclusive  term,  damnation. 


206 


MATTHEW  7,14.15. 


14.  Because  strait  (is)  the  gate,  and  narrow  (is)  the 
way,  which  leadeth  unto  life,  and  few  there  he  that 
find  it. 

Some  of  the  oldest  inanusci-ipts  and  versions  here  read  rt',  instead 
of  on,  which  is  then  supposed  to  be  an  exclamation  (hozo  strait  the 
gate  !  So  the  Vulgate  and  Peshito).  But  as  this  usage  of  the  Greek 
word  is  denied  by  the  philologists,  another  explanation  makes  the  sen¬ 
tence  interr  ogative,  lehy  (^6-)  the  gate  narroic,  &c,  ?  an  expression  either 
of  surprise  or  sorrow.  But  the  latest  critical  editions  have  restored 
the  common  text  (because'),  which  makes  this  verse  co-ordinate  with 
the  second  clause  of  v.  13,  ‘  because  there  is  a  broad  way,  and  because 
there  is  a  narrow  way,’  a  twofold  reason  for  the  exhortation  to  press 
into  the  latter.  JSfarroio  in  Greek  is  not  a  simple  synonyme  of  strait, 
but  more  expressive,  being  a  passive  participle  strictly  meaning  squeezed, 
compressed,  contracted,  and  suggesting  the  idea  of  a  difficult  as  well  as 
inconvenient  entrance.  To  a  Greek  reader  it  would  also  seem  signifi¬ 
cant,  that  this  verb  is  the  root  of  the  noun  translated  tribulation. 
(See  below,  on  13,  21,  and  again  compare  Acts  14.  22.)  The  (other) 
way  (to  wit)  the  (one)  leading  off  (or  away,  i.  e.  from  this  world)  into 
life,  literally,  the  life,  i.  e.  life  by  way  of  eminence,  eternal  life,  the  op¬ 
posite  of  destruction.  This  exact  correspondence  in  the  terms  of  the 
description  makes  it  more  remarkable  and  certainly  significant,  that 
in  the  last  clause  there  is  a  departure  from  this  uniformity.  In¬ 
stead  of  saying,  in  exact  antithesis  to  v.  \Z,few  (are)  those  entering 
(or  going  in)  through  it,  the  expression  here  \B,few  (are)  those  finding 
it.  As  we  have  no  right  to  consider  this  an  accidental  or  unmeaning 
variation,  so,  on  the  other  hand  it  greatly  strengthens  both  the  thought 
and  the  expression,  by  suggesting  the  additional  idea,  that  not  only  few 
gain  entrance  to  this  narrow  path  and  way,  but  few  so  much  as  find  it. 
While  the  broad  way  of  destruction  is  conspicuous  and  easy  of  access, 
the  narrow  way  of  life,  besides  being  difficult  of  entrance  w^hen  dis¬ 
covered,  is  not  even  discovered  by  the  greater  number.  This  agrees 
exactly  with  the  moral  or  spiritual  truth  intended  to  be  set  forth  by 
these  figures.  The  course  of  life  which  ends  in  ruin,  being  simply  the 
indulgence  of  man’s  natural  desires,  needs  neither  search  to  find  it  nor 
exertion  to  pursue  it,  but  is  perfectly  familiar  and  accessible  to  all 
alike.  The  course  of  life  which  leads  to  blessedness  hereafter,  being 
contradictory  to  human  wdsdom  and  to  human  inclinations,  calls  for  a 
twofold  painful  effort,  of  the  understanding  to  determine  what  it  is,  and 
of  the  will  to  choose  it  when  it  is  discovered. 

It 

15.  Beware  of  false  prophets,  which  come  to  you  in 
sheep^s  clothing,  but  inwardly  they  are  ravening  wolves. 

The  danger  of  mistake  as  well  as  difficulty,  hinted  in  the  last 
words  of  the  verse  preceding,  would  suggest,  by  obvious  associa¬ 
tion,  the  necessity  of  guidance,  with  its  natural  correlative,  the  risk  of 
being  misled  to  destruction.  This  fearful  peril  would  be  greatest 


MATTHEW  7,15. 


207 


where  the  guides  possessed  authority,  and  enjoyed  the  confidence  of 
those  whom  they  conducted.  This  was  really  the  case  with  the  relig¬ 
ious  leaders  of  the  Jews,  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  to  whom  there 
seems  to  be  immediate  reference,  although,  instead  of  being  named, 
they  are  described  in  terms  derived  from  the  Old  Testament,  where  false 
religious  teachers,  claiming  a  divine  authority,  are  called  false  projjTiets. 
As  prediction  of  the  future  is  not  even  the  original  and  primary  func¬ 
tions  of  a  prophet,  but  authoritative  teaching  in  the  name  of  God,  the 
phrase  is  perfectly  appropriate  to  those  here  characterized  by  it.  At 
the  same  time  it  admits  of  a  wider  application  to  false  teachers  of  a 
later  date,  confirmed  by  the  constant  use  of  prophet  in  relation  to  the 
Christian  church.*  Beware,  the  verb  employed  above  in  6, 1,  and 
there  explained.  Of  away  from,  so  as  to  avoid  connection  or  com¬ 
munication  with  them.  Which  come^  not  such  of  them  as  come,  as  if 
this  were  only  true  of  some  false  prophets,  but  icho  as  such  (or  because 
they  are  such)  come,  &c.  This  is  the  true  force  of  the  pronoun  here 
used  (olnves),  which  is  carefully  distinguished  in  Greek  usage  from 
the  ordinary  relative  (ol).  The  highly  figurative  terms  which 
follow  are  derived  from  the  habits  of  pastoral  life,  with  which 
many  of  the  hearers  were  familiar  from  experience  or  observation. 
As  the  wolf  is  the  natural  enemy  of  sheep,  it  is  elsewhere  used  as  a 
figure  for  the  cruel  enemies  of  Christ’s  flock  (see  below,  on  10,  IG. 
and  compare  John  10,  12.  Acts  20,  29).  But  the  stronger  and  more 
complete  figure  of  a  wolf  disguised  as  a  sheep,  conveys  the  idea  of  de¬ 
ceit  and  treachery  combined  with  cruelty  and  savage  fierceness.  In 
sheeph  clothing,  or  garments  of  sheep,  does  not  mean  in  literal  sheep¬ 
skins,  in  allusion  to  the  dress  of  the  old  prophets  ;  first,  because  this 
custom  is  assumed  without  proof ;  then,  because  this  explanation 
would  either  destroy  the  correspondence  of  the  clauses,  or  require  us  to 
understand  the  whole  description  literally,  which  would  be  absurd. 
The  true  sense  is,  that  these  false  prophets  come  to  (or  approach)  the 
people,  claiming  to  be  like  themselves  in  point  of  harralessness,  sim¬ 
plicity,  and  intimate  connection  with  the  church  or  chosen  people, 
often  represented  as  the  flock  of  God;  f  while  in  reality,  icithin.^  in¬ 
side  (Vulg.  as  distinguished  from  the  outside  appearance  or 

profession,  they  are  wolves.^  destructive  enemies,  and  ravening  (i.  e. 
eagerly  seizing  and  devouring)  wolves.  Withm^  or  more  exactly,y5w?i 
within.^  which  may  either  be  taken  as  equivalent  to  inside,  an  inter¬ 
pretation  justified  by  classic  usage,  or  explained  more  strictly  as  sug¬ 
gesting  the  idea  of  movement  or  action  from  within  {pib  intro).  '  In 
appearance  they  are  sheep,  but  by  the  actions  which  proceed  from 
within,  or  by  their  inward  character,  as  wrought  out  in  their  conduct, 
the}’’  are  seen  to  be  rapacious  wolves.’  This  severe  accusation  was  re¬ 
peated  and  sustained  at  length  near  the  close  of  our  Lord’s  ministry. 
(See  below,  on  23, 13-29.) 


*  See  below,  on  23,  34.  and  compare  Acts  11,  27.  19,  6.  21,  9.  1  Cor.  12,  23. 
14,  29.  Eph.  4, 11.  Rev.  11, 10.  22,  9. 

t  See  Isai.  40,11.  63,11.  Jer.  13,17.  Ezek.  34,6.  Mic.  7,14.  Zeeb.  9, 16. 
10,3.  11,17. 


208 


MATTHEW  7,16.17. 

16.  Ye  shall  know  them  by  their  fruits  :  Do  men 
gather  grapes  of  thorns,  or  hgs  of  thistles  ? 

That  the  terms  of  the  preceding  verse  were  highly  metaphorical,  must 
have  been  self-evident  to  every  hearer ;  but  if  any  doubt  remained,  it 
would  be  removed  by  the  total  change  of  figure  in  the  verse  before  us, 
where  the  savage  beasts  ai-e  suddenly  converted  into  worthless  plants, 
the  ravening  wolves  into  thorns  and  thistles.  Fruits^  taken  by  itself, 
might  be  applied  to  offspring  (as  in  Acts  2,  30) ;  but  the  vegetable 
meaning  of  the  figure  is  determined  by  the  other  clause,  where  thorns 
and  thistles,  grapes  and  figs,  are  particularly  mentioned.  The  severe 
denunciation  of  their  spiritual  guides  as  unworthy  of  their  confidence 
required  some  criterion  of  character,  some  test  by  which  to  justify 
their  disobedience.  This  is  here  afforded  in  a  figurative  form.  Know^ 
not  the  simple  Greek  verb,  but  a  compound,  meaning  sometimes  to  re¬ 
cognize,  to  know  again  (as  in  14,  35  below,  Mark  6,  33.  Luke  7,  37. 
Acts  3, 10.  4, 13.  12, 14.  28, 1),  sometimes  to  discover  or  detect  (as  in 
Mark  2,  8.  5,  30.  Luke  1,  22.  Acts  19,  34),  which  seems  to  be  the 
meaning  here.  By^  literally,  from^  in  reference  to  the  premises,  from 
which  the  conclusion  is  to  be  deduced.  The  form  of  interrogation,  in 
the  last  clause,  like  the  one  in  vs.  9.  10,  presupposes  or  anticipates  a 
negative  answer,  they  do  not  gather,  do  they  ?  It  is,  therefore,  equiv¬ 
alent  to  a  strong  denial,  rendered  more  emphatic  by  appealing  to 
the  hearer’s  own  experience  in  proof  of  it.  Men  is  applied,  as  in  5.  15, 
not  with  any  distinctive  meaning  as  opposed  to  women  or  to  other 
beings,  but  as  simply  representing  the  indefinite  subject  of  the  verb 
(they  gather)^  which  is  used  in  various  languages  to  signify  the  act  of 
reaping  or  plucking  fruit,  with  or  without  reference  to  that  of  storing 
it  away.  (See  below,  on  13,  28.  48.  and  compare  the  cognate  verb  in 
3,12.  6,26.  13,30.)  Thorns  and  thistles  are  in  Greek  generic  and 
specific  terms,  the  former  representing  the  whole  class  of  armed  or 
prickly  plants,  the  latter  a  particular  variety  so  called  from  being 
three-pronged.  The  distinction  is  of  no  importance  here,  where  the  two 
are^  put  together  as  familiar  instances  of  fruitless  and  forbidding  plants, 
while  grapes  and  figs  are  named  as  the  best  known  and  most  highly 
valued  fruits  of  Palestine.  The  fact  thus  interrogatively  and  figura¬ 
tively  stated,  is  that  men  know  better  than  to  look  for  valuable  fruit 
on  plants  which  cannot  from  their  nature  yield  it. 

17.  Even  so  every  good  tree  briiigetli  forth  good  fruit  ; 
but  a  corrupt  tree  bringeth  forth  evil  fruit. 

Even  S6>,  or  so,  too,  in  like  manner,  introduces  an  extension  of  the 
previous  statement,  as  to  different  species,  so  as  to  embrace  individuals 
of  one  and  the  same  species.  A  plant,  in  order  to  bear  fruit,  must  not 
only  belong  to  a  fruit-bearing  species,  but  itself  be  fruitful.  Good  is 
here  used  to  translate  two  Greek  adjectives,  which  differ  somewhat  in 
their  primary  import,  but  in  general  usage  are  almost  synonymous. 
The  former  means  originally  good  in  its  kind,  adapted  to  its  purpo.se ; 


209 


MATTHEW  7,17.18.19. 

the  other,  beautiful,  or  pleasing  to  the  sight ;  but  both  are  constantlj'' 
employed  where  we  say  ‘  good,’  both  in  a  physical  and  moral  sense.  In 
this  case,  we  may  either  treat  them  as  sjmonymous,  or  understand  the 
first  as  meaning  good  for  bearing,  and  the  other  fine,  attractive  to  the 
senses.  Bringeth  forth,  literally,  produces,  in  which  sense  and 

application  the  Greek  verb  is  used  by  Aristotle  and  Theophrastus.  The 
present  tense  denotes  a  general  or  universal  truth,  as  if  he  had  said, 

‘  always  bears  good  fruits.’  The  plural  form  of  the  noun  is  needlessly 
relinquished  in  the  version,  here  and  in  the  next  verse,  though  retained  in 
vs.  16.  20.  That  no  particular  significance  attaches  to  the  plural  form, 
appears  from  the  occurrence  of  the  singular  in  v.  19,  as  well  as  from 
the  use  of  the  plural  in  speaking  of  a  single  tree.  In  the  last  clause, 
which  is  simply  the  converse  of  the  first,  there  is  also  a  difference  in 
the  epithets,  but  here  retained  in  the  translation.  Corrupt,  literally, 
rotten  or  decayed,  which  can  hardly  be  intended  in  its  strict  sense,  as 
a  rotten  or  decayed  tree  bears  no  fruit  at  all,  but  rather  in  the  some¬ 
what  wider  sense  of  spoiled  or  vitiated,  bad  in  quality,  the  simple  op¬ 
posite  of  good  in  the  preceding  clause.  Evil,  the  adjective  applied  to 
sinful  men  in  v.  1 1  above,  and  in  6,  23  to  a  disordered  eye,  has  here 
too,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  the  sense  of  physical  defect  or  wmrth- 
lessness.  The  general  fact  here  asserted  is  that  plants,  as  well  as 
animals,  produce  their  like,  so  that  the  quality  of  the  tree  may  be  de¬ 
termined  by  the  fruit,  and  vice  versa. 

18.  A  good  tree  cannot  bring  forth  evil  fruit,  neither 
(can)  a  corrupt  tree  bring  forth  good  fruit. 

The  fact  asserted  in  the  previous  verse  not  only  is  so,  but  it  must 
be  so.  The  bad  tree  not  only  does  not  but  cannot  produce  good  fruit, 
or  the  good  tree  bad  fruit.  This  may  seem  at  variance  with  the  fact 
that  even  good  trees  are  liable  to  fail,  or  to  bear  fruit  of  an  inferior 
value.  But  the  reference  is  not  to  failures  or  exceptional  cases,  but  to 
the  legitimate  and  normal  operation  of  the  cause.  The  natural  and 
proper  product  of  a  good  or  bad  tree  cannot  differ  from  its  source  in 
quality.  This  is  strictly  true,  and  all  that  is  intended.  The  four 
epithets  occurring  in  v.  17  are  here  repeated,  not  at  random,  but  with 
great  precision,  in  accordance  with  their  previous  application,  although 
not  in  the  same  order,  which  implies  that  they  were  meant  to  be  dis¬ 
tinctly  understood,  according  to  the  proper  sense  of  each. 

19.  Every  tree  that  bringeth  not  forth  good  fruit  is 
hewn  down,  and  cast  into  the  fire. 

The  appeal  to  observation  and  experience  is  here  carried  a  step 
further,  so  as  to  include  not  only  the  habitual  estimate  of  trees  accord¬ 
ing  to  their  fruits,  but  the  practical  issue  of  that  estimate,  the  treat¬ 
ment  of  the  tree  according  to  its  fruits.  Here  again  the  present  form 
of  the  verb  denotes  what  is  usual  among  men  in  such  cases.  Every 
tree  not  mahing  (or  producing  good)  fruit,  i.  e.  never  doing  so,  since 


210 


MATTHEW  7,19.20.21. 


tnen  do  not  destroy  trees  for  a  single  failure.  Hewn  down^  literally 
out^  implying  absolute  excision  and  removal  from  its  place.  The  same 
Verb  is  translated  in  the  same  -vvay  in  3, 10,  but  in  5,  30  where  it  is  ap¬ 
plied  to  members  of  the  body,  cut  off.  The  last  words  indicate  the 
use,  to  which  the  tree  thus  felled  was  commonly  applied,  to  wit,  as 
fuel.  This  specification  of  a  custom  so  familiar  makes  the  sentence 
more  impressive,  without  excluding  other  purposes  for  which  a  barren 
fruit-tree  might  be  cut  down.  ‘  How  many  a  tree,  which  failed  to 
answer  its  original  purpose,  have  we  seen  hewn  down  and  converted 
into  fuel  ?  ’  The  specific  reference  to  this  use  is  intended  to  suggest 
the  destiny  of  such  false  teachers. 

20.  Wherefore,  by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them. 

Wherefore.,  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  similar  word  therefore., 
or  at  least  not  here  used  to  represent  the  same  Greek  particle,  but  one, 
which,  although  an  illative  or  logical  connective,  seems  to  point  out  a 
remoter  antecedent,  or  to  indicate  an  inference,  but  not  from  what  imme¬ 
diately  precedes.  So  here,  the  reference  to  human  practice  having 
been  extended  further  than  the  point  of  comparison  originally  men¬ 
tioned,  namely,  that  men  usually  estimate  trees  by  their  fruit,  our 
Lord  now  reverts  to  that  point,  for  the  purpose  of  applying  the  com¬ 
parison  to  the  case  in  hand.  So  then  (as  I  was  saying  but  a  little 
while  ago)  l)y  their  fruits,  i.  e.  by  the  fruits  of  these  false  prophets 
ye  shall  know  (recognise,  discover,  or  detect)  them.  It  has  sometimes 
been  disputed  wdiether  fruits  here  means  false  doctrine  or  erroneous 
practice  founded  on  it.  It  is  clear,  from  the  whole  drift  of  the  com¬ 
parison  fruits,  in  the  application,  means  the  moral  effect  produced 
by  the  false  teachers  here  denounced,  both  on  the  doctrinal  belief  and 
on  the  lives  of  their  disciples :  ‘  That  they  are  false  prophets  and  ra¬ 
pacious  wolves,  you  may  easily  convince  yourselves,  by  looking  at  the 
influence  exerted  by  them  on  your  own  character  and  that  of  others.’ 
The  allusion  commonly  assumed  to  the  personal  character  and  conduct 
of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  themselves,  can  only  be  admitted,  if  at 
all,  as  included  in  the  general  description  of  their  influence,  but  not  as 
the  criterion  itself,  by  which  they  must  be''judged;  for  this  would 
make  their  character  the  test  or  touchstone  of  itself,  and  be  equivalent 
to  saying,  ‘you  may  know  that  they  are  wicked  by  their  being  wick¬ 
ed,’  which  is  reasoning  in  a  circle ;  whereas  no  such  objection  can  be 
made  to  the  prescription,  ‘  you  may  know  that  they  are  wicked  by 
their  making  you  and  others  so,’ 

21.  Not  every  one  that  saitli  unto  me,  Lord,  Lord, 
shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  but  he  that  do- 
eth  the  will  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven. 

The  foregoing  premonition  might  have  seemed  to  be  directed  only 
against  open  enemies.  But  here  our  Lord  proceeds  to  warn  liis 
hearers,  that  even  some  of  his  professed  disciples  would  be  finally  re- 


MATTHEW  7,21.22. 


211 


jected.  This  was  the  more  important  because  many  of  the  very  class 
which  he  had  been  describing  had  assumed  the  name  and  language  of 
his  followers,  either  under  shallow  and  short-lived  impressions,  or  with 
the  purpose  of  deliberate  deception.  Even  in  the  college  of  Apostles 
this  class  had  its  representative,  well  known  and  tolerated  by  the  Mas¬ 
ter,  as  a  means  of  greater  good  than  could  then  be  eflected  by  an  earlier 
exposure  and  expulsion.  (See  John  6,  64.  70.)  So  here  he  plainly  in¬ 
timates  the  presence  of  hypocrites  and  false  professors  in  the  ranks  of 
his  nominal  disciples.  (See  below,  on  13,  24.)  This  was  a  most  im¬ 
portant  and  appropriate  winding  up  of  his  organic  or  inaugural  dis¬ 
course,  now  drawing  to  a  solemn  and  impressive  close.  Not  every  o?ie, 
in  classic  Greek,  might  seem  to  be  equivalent  to  no  one,  thus  excluding 
all  who  profess  to  acknowledge  Christ  as  Lord  from  admission  to  his 
kingdom.  But  this  absurd  sense  is  avoided  by  a  due  regard  to  the 
Hebrew  idiom  which,  like  our  own,  uses  the  phrase  not  every  one  to 
intimate  that  some  but  not  all  who  made  such  a  profession  would  be 
saved.  Saying  unto  me,  so  addressing  or  accosting  me.  Lord,  i.  e. 
master,  sovereign,  the  repetition  making  the  acknowledgment  more 
earnest  and  emphatic,  or  pei  haps  denoting  frequent  and  habitual  action, 
‘not  all  who  are  continually  calling  me  their  Lord  and  Master.’  It  is  not 
improbable  that  this  practice  had  already  become  common  among  those 
disciples  whom  our  Lord  knew  to  be  h3'pocrites  or  fixlse  professors. 
That  it  was  not  of  itself  to  be  a  ground  of  condemnation,  but  is  here 
denounced  only  as  insutficient  without  action  answering  to  the  profes¬ 
sion,  is  expressly  taught  in  the  remainder  of  the  verse.  But  the  (one) 
doing,  practising,  the  will  of  (what  is  willed  and  required  by)  my 
father,  the  (one)  in  heaven,  literally  heavens  (see  above,  on  5,  3).  The 
same  limitation  or  specification  of  the  vague  term  father,  so  as  to  ex¬ 
clude  all  human  paternity,  had  been  used  before  to  describe  the  spirit¬ 
ual  sonship  of  believers  (see  above,  on  5, 10.  45.  48.  0, 1.  9.  7, 11),  and 
is  now  applied,  in  a  still  more  strict  and  proper  sense,  to  that  of  Christ 
himself,  impljdng  oneness  of  nature  and  coincidence  of  will,  so  that  his 
kingdom  was  the  kingdom  of  the  Father,  and  obedience  to  its  law  obe¬ 
dience  to  the  Son  himself.  The  {one)  doing,  not  in  contrast  to  the 
{one)  saying,  for  the  two  things  are  entirel}’’  compatible,  but  the  one 
both  saying  and  doing,  or  ‘of  those  who  call  me  Lord,  the  one  who  at 
the  same  time  does  my  Father’s  will.’ 

22.  Many  vv^ill  say  to  me  in  that  day,  Lord,  Lord, 
have  we  not  prophesied  in  thy  name  ?  and  in  thy  name 
have  cast  out  devils  ?  and  in  thy  name  done  many  won¬ 
derful  works  ? 

The  exclusion  just  predicted  would  bring  with  it  the  severest  dis¬ 
appointment  to  many  now  professing  to  be  Christ’s  disciples.  There  is 
no  need  of  supposing  that  the  very  dialogue  here  given  will  be  over 
verbally  repeated  in  the  case  of  an}'-  one,  much  less  of  every  one,  be¬ 
longing  to  the  class  in  question.  It  is  equally  admissible,  and  more  in 


212 


MATTHEW  7,22. 

keeping  with  our  Lord’s  accustomed  mode  of  speaking  on  such  subjects, 
to  regard  this  as  a  lively  embodiment  in  words  of  what  will  certainly 
take  place  in  fact.  (See  below,  on  25,  31-48.)  Their  surprise  and  dis¬ 
appointment  will  be  such  as  might  be  naturally  clothed  in  these  words. 

In  that  day.  an  indefinite  expression,  purposely  employed  to  make  a 
vague  but  powerful  impression  on  the  hearers,  while  to  us  it  conveys  a 
more  specific  sense,  determined  and  made  clear  by  later  revelations. 
Those  immediately  addressed  might  not,  as  we  do,  instantly  associate 
the  words  with  the  idea  of  a  final  judgment  or  a  great  day  of  account,, 
though  this  is  really  their  import  as  interpreted  to  us,  whereas  to  them 
they  might  suggest  little  more  than  if  it  had  been  said,  ‘  the  day  is 
coming  when  many  will  be  ready  to  exclaim.’  The  tone  is  that  of  se¬ 
rious  and  alarmed  expostulation,  rendered  bold  by  the  imminent  dan¬ 
ger  of  exclusion.  The  reiteration  {Lord.,  Lord)  is  not  only  a  renewal, 
as  it  were,  of  the  original  profession,  but  a  natural  evidence  of  present 
earnestness  and  importunity.  Ham  we  not.,  or  retaining  the  original 
construction,  which  implies  an  interval,  greater  or  less,  between  the 
acts  described  and  this  appeal  to  them,  did  tee  not.,  when  thou  wast 
upon  earth,  and  we  among  thy  followers.  In  thy  name,  may  be  strictly 
understood  as  meaning  called  and  known  by  thy  name,  thy  professed 
disciples ;  or  agreeably  to  constant  usage  as  denoting  an  appeal  to 
Christ,  an  invocation  of  his  name,  as  the  authority  by  which  they 
acted  (see  below,  on  10,41.  18,5.  20.  21,9.  23.  39.  24,5);  or  both 
these  senses,  which  are  perfectly  compatible,  may  be  combined  ;  as 
bearing  thy  name  and  invoking  it,  i.  e.  as  nominal  disciples  and  official 
messengers.  Prophesy.,  not  necessarily  predict,  though  that  might  be 
included  (as  in  Acts  11,  28.  21, 10),  but  authoritatively  teach  in  the 
Church  and  under  a  commission  from  our  Lord  himself,  authenticated 
by  the  gift  of  miracles.  Of  these  the  most  remarkable  is  stated  by 
itself,  and  then  a  general  expression  follows.  See  above,  on  4,  24,  where 
the  participle  (demonized)  is  a  derivative  of  the  word  here  rendered 
devils.,  although  not  correctly,  as  the  Scriptures  recognize  but  one 
Devil.,  so  called  as  the  slanderer  and  false  accuser  of  mankind  (see 
above,  on  4,  1),  while  the  other  fallen  angels  are  collectively  described 
as  demons.  This  word,  in  its  primary  form  (dai/jicov),  means  a  deity 
(in  Latin,  numeii),  or  rather  any  superhuman  being,  whether  god,  or 
gods,  or  demigods,  &c.,  in  which  sense  Socrates  applied  it  to  the  genius, 
or  good  angel,  by  whom  he  believed  himself  to  be  attended.  From 
this  noun  comes  a  corresponding  adjective  (daitxovLos).  divine  or  super¬ 
human,  the  neuter  form  of  which,  and  not  a  diminutive  as  some  have 
thought,  is  used  absolutely,  here  and  elsewhere,  to  denote  the  fallen 
spirits  who  were  suffered  to  possess,  or  occupy  and  influence,  the  bodies 
and  the  souls  of  men,  and  whose  expulsion  was  the  strongest  proof  of 
Christ’s  superiority  and  triumph,  as  the  seed  of  the  woman,  over  the 
seed  of  the  serpent  (Gen.  3, 15),  or  the  devil  and  his  angels.  (See  below, 
on  25, 41.)  That  this  power  was  not  an  incommunicable  one.  but  ac-  . 
tually  imparted  by  our  Lord  to  his  disciples,  is  expressly  stated  in  10, 

8  below.  Wonderful  worhs,  an  inexact  and  needless  paraphrase  of  one 
word,  literally  meaning  powers  (or  as  Wiclif,  following  the  Vul- 


213 


'A 

^  M  A  T  T  H  E  W  7,  22.  23.  24. 

^  gate,  here  translates  it,  rirtues),  but  applied  in  usage  to  miracii- 
}<  lous  performances,  as  fruits  and  proofs  of  superhuman  power,  and 
I  therefore  well  translated  in  the  other  English  versions,  miracles.  This 
is  a  generic  or  collective  term,  added  to  the  specific  one  before  it,  so  as 
,  to  make  dispossession  prominent  among  the  other  wonders  wrought,  or 
claimed  to  have  been  wrought,  by  them.  There  is  no  need  of  suppos- 
■  ing  this  to  be  itself  a  false  profession,  since  we  have  reason  to  believe 
'  that  miracles,  as  well  as  prophecy,  were  sometimes  placed  at  the  dis¬ 
posal  of  ungodly  men. 

23.  And  then  will  I  profess  unto  them,  I  never  knew 
you  :  depart  from  me,  ye  that  work  iniquity. 

I  As  before  suggested,  this  may  be  regarded  either  as  the  actual  reply 
I  in  some  one  case,  or  every  case,  to  such  expostulations ;  or,  with  more 
probabilit}^  as  a  translation  into  words  of  what  will  be  impressed  upon 
the  minds  of  such  unhappy  hypocrites,  in  answer  to  their  own  un- 
founded  claims.  And.^  continues  the  description  without  interruption, 

!  so  that  and  then  is  nearly  equivalent  to  forthwith  or  immediately, 

1  though  then^  taken  by  itself,  is  the  correlative  of  that  day  in  v.  22,  and 

I  to  the  same  extent  indefinite  to  those  who  originally  heard  it.  Con¬ 

fess^  a  verb  originally  meaning  to  spealc  together^  or  the  same  thing  with 
another,  i.  e.  to  assent,  agree,  to  what  is  spoken.  In  this  connection, 
it  may  either  have  the  vaguer  sense,  in  which  it  is  occasionally  used, 
of  solemnly  declaring,  or  be  taken  as  a  sort  of  solemn  irony,  ‘I  will  as¬ 
sent  to  what  3mu  say,  but  only  by  denying  it.’  Or  the  verb  may  mean 
to  profess.^  and  there  may  be  a  strong  antithesis  between  his  profession 
and  their  own.  As  they  had  professed  him,  so  he  would  profess  them, 
but  only  by  declaring  that  he  never  knew  them.  (See  below,  on  10, 
33.)  Nerer^  not  even  when  I  seemed  to  recognize  j'our  claims  by  suf¬ 
fering  your  presence.  Knew,  i.  e.  knew  you  to  be  mine,  which  is  equiv¬ 
alent  to  saying,  that  he  always  knew  them  to  be  none  of  his.  Depart, 
a  Greek  verb  which  denotes  far  more  than  locomotion,  namely,  separa¬ 
tion  and  desertion,  in  which  sense  it  is  the  root  of  the  noun  anchorite, 
meaning  one  who  retires,  or  retreats,  or  is  secluded  from  the  world. 
(See  above,  on  2, 12.  4,  12,  and  below,  on  27,  5.)  It  here  means,  sepa¬ 
rate  jmurselves  from  my  disciples,  take  your  true  place  as  my  enemies. 
The  ground  of  this  severe  denunciation  is  then  added,  as  a  designation 
or  description  of  the  persons  so  denounced.  Ye  that  worh,  literally, 
the  {onei)  worldng,  or  those  worhing,  not  simply  doing  once  for  all,  or 
even  habitually  practising,  but  worhing  at  it  as  your  daily  business, 
or  worhing  it  out  as  the  product  of  your  labour.  (See  below,  on  21, 
28.  25,  IG.)  Iniquity,  or  more  exactly,  lawlessness,  the  opposite  of 
righteousness,  conformity  to  law  or  to  the  will  of  God.  (See  above, 
on  3, 15.  5,  6.  10.  20.  0,  33.  and  below,  on  21,  32.) 

24.  Therefore,  whosoever  heareth  these  sayings  of 
mine,  and  doeth  them,  I  will  liken  him  unto  a  wise  man, 
which  built  his  house  upon  a  rock  : 


214 


MATTHEW  7,24.25.26. 


There  was  still  a  clanger  to  which  many  were  exposed  who  could 
not  be  accused  of  hypocrisy  or  false  profession  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
terms.  Even  after  hearing  all  that  Christ  had  said  in  correction  of 
prevailing  misconceptions  and  of  practical  abuses,  some  might  after  all 
content  themselves  with  having  heard  it,  and  make  no  attempt  to  act- 
upon  it.  Such  he  warns,  in  the  ensuing  verses  (24-27),  that  mere 
knowledge  of  the  truth  and  human  duty  without  corresponding 
practice,  only  aggravates  the  doom  of  those  who  have  it.  This 
idea  is  beautifully  carried  out  in  parabolic  form,  by  supposing  two 
familiar  cases,  perhaps  well  known  to  the  hearers.  There  is  certainly 
no  reason  for  regarding  them  as  fictions.  Therefore  draws  a  conclusion 
not  from  what  immediately  precedes,  but  from  the  whole  discourse ; 
therefore,  since  all  these  things  are  so.  Does  them^  acts  upon  them, 
acts  them  out,  in  his  habitual  conduct.  I  will  liken^  i.  e.  1  will  now 
compare,  by  way  of  illustration.  Wise,  a  Greek  word  strictly  mean¬ 
ing  sane,  not  insane,  but  applied  also  to  other  less  extreme  intellectual 
distinctions,  as  in  this  case  to  discretion,  practical  prudence.  Who,  the 
compound  relative  explained  above  (on  v.  15),  and  which  -would  readily 
suggest  to  a  Greek  reader  the  idea,  who  (as  such),  i.  e.  as  being  wise, 
because  he  was  wise.  Built,  in  Greek  the  aorist,  referring  to  a  definite 
past,  and  not  the  present,  setting  forth  a  general  truth.  This  makes 
it  the  more  probable  that  we  have  here  a  reference  to  real  incidents, 
perhaps  fresh  in  the  memory  of  some  who  heard  him.  A  roch,  literally, 
the  rocJc,  not  a  rocky  fragment,  but  a  mass  or  bed  of  rock,  as  we  some¬ 
times  speak  of  excavation  in  the  living  rock. 

25.  And  the  rain  descended,  and  the  floods  came,  and 
the  winds  blew,  and  beat  upon  that  house  ;  and  it  fell 
not  :  for  it  was  founded  upon  a  rock. 

This  verse  describes  the  value  of  so  solid  a  foundation,  even  in  the 
midst  of  peril.  Bain,  in  Greek  a  word  denoting  a  shower  or  a  storm 
of  rain.  Floods,  the  common  word  in  Greek  for  rivers,  here  put  for 
inundations,  freshets,  which  is  a  frequent  sense  of  the  English  plural. 
Came,  as  something  extraordinary,  not  continually  present.  Beat 
upon,  a  good  sense  and  good  English,  but  not  the  exact  original  ex¬ 
pression,  which  exhibits  two  cognate  verbs,  a  simple  and  a  compound. 
T\\qj  fell  upon  it,  but  it  fell  not.  Was  founded  upon  a  rode,  or  more 
exactly,  had  been  founded  upon  the  rode,  w^hich  may  here  mean  in 
addition  the  rock  previously  mentioned. 

26.  And  everyone  that  heareth  these  sayings  of  mine, 
and  doeth  them  not,  shall  he  likened  unto  a  foolish  man, 
which  built  his  house  upon  the  sand  : 

This  is  simply  the  converse  of  the  case  first  stated,  or  its  counter¬ 
part  in  real  life.  The  same  form  of  expression  is  retained,  except  in 
those  parts  where  the  contrast  or  antithesis  must  be  brought  out. 


MAT  THE  AY  7,26.27.28. 


215 


Here,  as  in  v.  4,  he  does  not  simply  say  my  words,  but  these  my  words, 
i.  e.  those  uttered  upon  this  occasion,  which  confirms  our  pievious 
conclusion  as  to  the  unity  of  the  discourse  aud  its  delivery  at  one 
time  (see  above,  on  5,  1).  Instead  of  I  will  lilteii  we  have  here  the 
passive,  shall  he  likened.,  which  may  either  be  considered  a  synonymous 
expression,  or  express  the  additional  idea  that  the  likeness  shall  not 
be  confined  to  this  description,  but  extend  to  the  reality,  or  be  ver¬ 
ified  in  actual  experience.  Foolish,  a  negative  rather  than  a  positive 
description,  the  Greek  word,  when  applied  to  material  objects,  meaning 
tasteless  or  insipid  (.see  above,  on  5,  13),  when  to  intellectual,  sense¬ 
less  or  irrational  (see  above,  on  5.  22).  The  reference  is  here  to  want 
of  common  prudence  or  discretion  in  providing  for  one’s  own  security. 
The  sand,  exactly  corresponding  to  the  rock  in  v.  24,  each  denoting  not 
a  definite  or  separate  portion,  but  the  substance  or  material  itself. 
The  contrast,  as  to  this  point,  is  made  far  more  striking  by  the  same¬ 
ness  of  the  other  terms  employed  in  the  description. 

27.  And  the  rain  descended,  and  the  floods  came,  and 
the  winds  blew,  and  heat  npon  that  house  ;  and  it  fell : 
and  great  was  the  fall  of  it. 

The  test  applied  to  the  foundation  is  again  described  precisely  as 
before,  or  with  a  single  variation,  and  even  that  does  not  appear  in 
English.  Beat  upon  is  here  a  more  exact  translation  than  in  v.  25, 
the  Greek  verb  being  different,  and  literally  meaning,  struck  against, 
the  double  sen.se  of  falling  being  not  expressed  at  all  in  this  case.  The 

antithesis  is  perfect,  both  in  form  and  substance,  and  it  fell  not . 

and  it  fell ;  but  in  the  added  words  there  is  a  marked  and  striking 
difference.  Instead  of  telling  why  it  fell  (as  in  the  other  case),  to  wit, 
because  it  had  been  founded  on  the  sand,  our  Lord  looks  away  from 
the  cause  to  the  effect,  and  intimates  the  total  ruin  of  the  baseless 
edifice,  by  simply  adding,  and  its  fall  was  great.  The  force  of  this 
fine  apologue  is  greatly  mai-red  by  giving  a  specific  sense  to  each  of  its 
details,  the  rock,  the  sand,  the  wind,  the  rain,  the  floods,  &c.  Such 
minute  interpretations  may  indeed  be  endlessl}^  extended  and  diversi¬ 
fied,  to  suit  the  taste  or  meet  the  wants  of  readers  and  expounders ; 
but  they  must  not  be  forced  upon  the  text  as  any  part  of  its  essential 
meaning  and  design,  which  is  to  set  forth,  by  familiar  but  impressive 
analogies  from  real  life,  the  simple  but  momentous  truth,  that  mere 
religious  knowledge,  without  corresponding  practice,  is  a  baseless  fabric 
doomed  to  swift  destruction. 

28.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Jesus  had  ended  these 
sayings,  the  people  were  astonished  at  his  doctrine  : 

29.  For  he  taught  them  as  (one)  having  authority, 
and  not  as  the  scribes. 

That  the  Sei’mon  on  the  IMount,  which  closes  with  the  verse  pre¬ 
ceding  this,  is  not  a  mere  collection  of  our  Saviour’s  sayings  upon 
different  occasions,  put  together  to  illustrate  his  peculiar  mode  of 


2X6 


MATTHEW  7,28. 


teaching,  hut  a  single  continuous  discourse  delivered  at  a  certain  time 
and  place,  is  clear  not  only  from  the  way  in  which  the  writer  intro¬ 
duces  it  (see  above,  on  5,  1),  and  from  its  structure  and  contents,  but 
also  from  the  statement  here  made  as  to  its  conclusion  and  effect. 
And  resumes  the  narrative  suspended  (5,  2)  for  the  purpose  of  record¬ 
ing  this  discourse  at  length.  It  came  to  pass  (or  happened)  is  not  a 
mere  unmeaning  superfluity,  but  tantamount  to  our  familiar  phrases, 
‘  the  result  was  this,’  or  ‘  thus  it  turned  out.’  Mad  ended  is  in  Greek 
an  aorist,  when  he  ended^  finished,  or  completed,  an  emphatic  compound 
properly  denoting  an  entire  accomplishment  or  consummation.  Here 
again  the  language  presupposes  a  continuous  coherent  whole,  some¬ 
thing  that  had  a  beginning  and  must  have  an  end,  expressions  which 
could  scarcely  be  applied  to  a  desultory  series  of  disjointed  dicta.  The 
effect  described  is  that  produced  upon  the  people^  or  as  it  should  have 
been  translated,  the  multitudes^  the  vast  promiscuous  assemblage 
mentioned  in  4,  25  and  5,  1.  and  not  upon  any  select  class  among 
them.  A  highly  important  feature  in  the  history  of  Christ’s  ministry 
is  the  impression  or  effect  of  his  teaching  on  the  multitudes  who  heard 
it.  This  is  here  described  in  reference  to  one  particular  occasion,  but 
in  terms  admitting  of  a  general  application,  and  substantial!}^  repeated 
elsewhere.  (See  below,  13,  54,  22,33,  and  compare  Mark  6,  2.  11.  18. 
Acts  13,  12.)  The  grand  effect  was  that  of  wonder  or  astonishment, 
they  were  struclc,  literally  struch  out^  driven  from  their  normal  or  cus¬ 
tomary  state  of  mind  by  something  new  and  strange.  The  object  or 
occasion  of  this  wonder  was  his  doctrine,  not  his  learning,  as  Tyndale 
renders  it  in  Mark  1,  22.  unless  he  uses  that  term  in  its  old  sense 
(now  regarded  as  a  vulgarism)  of  teaching,  which  is  Wiclif ’s  version  ; 
nor  the  truth  taught,  which  is  now  the  common  use  of  doctrine :  but 
as  the  Greek  word  usually  means  in  the  gospels,  either  the  act  or 
mode  of  teaching.  That  this  is  the  meaning  here,  we  learn  irom  the 
reason  given  for  their  wonder.  This  is  stated  in  the  last  clause  nega¬ 
tively,  yhr  he  was  (then  as  habitually)  teaching  them  not  as  the  Scribes. 
His  instructions  are  here  brought  into  direct  comparison  with  those 
of  a  certain  well-known  class,  who  must  of  course  be  teachers.  This 
is  a  sufficient  refutation  of  the  error  that  the  Scribes  were  either  clerks 
to  the  magistrates,  or  mere  transcribers  of  the  Scriptures.  As  the 
successors  of  Ezra,  the  first  Scribe  of  whom  we  read  in  this  sense 
(Ezra  7,  6),  they  were  the  conservators  and  guardians  of  the  sacred 
text  and  canon,  which  implies  a  critical  acquaintance  with  them,  such 
as  qualified  the  Scribes  above  all  others  to  be  expounders  of  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  likewise.  Although  rather  a  profession  than  an  office,  they  exerted 
a  commanding  influence  on  public  opinion,  and  are  repeatedly  referred 
to  as  authoritative  teachers  of  religion.  (See  below,  on  23,  2-4,  and 
compare  Mark  12,  35.  Luke  11,  52)  The  point  of  difference  is  indi¬ 
cated  in  the  positive  statement  that  he  taught  (or  icas  teaching)  them 
as  (one)  having  authority.  This  cannot  refer  to  a  dogmatical  authorita¬ 
tive  manner,  as  to  which  the  Scribes  most  probably  .surpassed  all  others. 
Nor  does  it  mean  powerf  ully ,  as  explained  by  Luther.  The  only  sense 
consistent  with  the  usage  of  the  terms  and  with  the  context  is,  that  he 


MATTHEW  7,28. 


217 


taught  them,  not  as  a  mere  expounder,  but  with  the  original  authority 
belonging  to  the  author  of  the  law  expounded.  This  is  not  a  descrip¬ 
tion  of  mere  outward  manner,  but  of  that  self-evidencing  light  and 
self-asserting  force,  which  must  accompany  all  direct  divine  communi¬ 
cations  to  the  minds  of  creatures.  Even  those  who  were  most  accus¬ 
tomed  and  most  submissive  to  the  teachings  of  the  Scribes,  must  have 
felt,  as  soon  as  Jesus  spoke,  that  he  was  speaking  with  authority, 
declaring  his  own  will,  and  expounding  his  own  law,  not  that  of  an¬ 
other.  The  distinction,  therefore,  is  not  merely  between  traditional  and 
textual  instruction,  but  between  two  forms  or  methods  of  the  latter. 
Some  of  the  old  manuscripts  here  read,  their  Scribes  (adopted  by  the 
latest  critics),  to  which  others  add,  and  the  Pharisees. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Here  begins  a  series  of  miracles  extending  through  the  next  chapter, 
those  recorded  in  the  present  being  five  in  number,  with  a  general 
account  of  many  more.  Of  the  five  recounted  in  detail,  only  one  is 
accompanied  by  any  statement  of  our  Lord’s  words,  beyond  what  is 
necessarily  included  in  the  description  of  the  miracle  itself.  This 
remarkable  succession  of  miraculous  performances,  uninterrupted 
by  discourse  or  teaching,  is  sufficient  of  itself  to  create  a  presumption 
that  the  incidents  here  given  are  not  arranged  in  reference  to  tlie  time 
of  their  occurrence,  but  to  some  other  purpose  in  the  mind  of  the  his¬ 
torian.  This  presumption  is  strengthened  by  the  fact,  that  several  of 
these  miracles  are  given  in  the  other  gospels  in  a  different  chronological 
connection.  All  appearance  of  discrepancy  is  removed  by  the  absence 
in  such  cases  of  any  chronological  specification  on  the  part  of  Matthew. 
The  true  ground  or  principle  of  his  arrangement  is  the  illustration  of 
our  Lord’s  miraculous  ministry  by  chosen  specimens,  succeeding  the 
i  great  sample  of  his  teaching  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  preced- 
i  ing  the  mission  of  the  twelve  apostles  with  the  same  didactic  and 
miraculous  functions.  The  precise  relation  of  the  several  occurrences 
!  here  given  to  the  parallel  accounts,  and  of  the  general  course  of  the  his- 
i  tory,  as  well  as  the  probable  grounds  for  their  selection,  will  be  stated 

:  in  expounding  each  successively.  The  order  of  the  topics  in  this 

I  chapter  is  as  follows.  After  stating  the  continued  concourse  which 
attended  !t)ur  Lord’s  ministry  (1),  the  history  records  the  healing  of  a 
leper  (2-4) ;  that  of  a  paralytic  at  Capernaum,  the  servant  of  a  Homan 
officer  (5-13)  ;  that  of  a  case  of  fever  in  the  famil}'-  of  Peter  (14.  15) ; 
and  of  many  others  on  the  same  day,  not  related  in  detail,  but  described 
t  in  general  tei-rns.  and  in  connection  with  an  aTicicnt  prophecy  respect¬ 
ing  the  Messiah’s  mission  (IG,  17).  This  is  followed  by  a  dialogue, 
i  intended  to  exemplify  the  false  impressions  of  that  mission,  entertained 

10 


218 


MATTHEW  8,1.2. 


by  some  who  called  themselves  disciples  (18-22),  and  at  the  same 
time  to  introduce  two  signal  miracles  which  actually  followed  it, 
one  evincing  sovereign  power  over  nature  and  the  elements  (23-27), 
the  other  over  demdhs  and  demoniacal  possessions  of  the  most  malig¬ 
nant  character  (28-34). 

1.  When  he  was  come  down  from  the  mountain,  great 
multitudes  followed  him. 

Having  described  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  as  occasioned  by  and 
uttered  to  a  vast  promiscuous  assemblage  (5, 1),  and  recorded  the  ef¬ 
fect  which  it  produced  upon  them  (7,  28),  the  historian  now  informs  us 
that  this  concourse  did  not  cease  with  the  discourse,  nor  even  with  our 
Lord’s  descent  from  the  mountain  or  the  highlands  (see  above,  on  5, 1) 
where  it  was  delivered,  but  continued  after  his  return  to  the  lake-shore 
and  the  city  of  Capernaum.  The  statement  of  the  fact  here  seems  de¬ 
signed  to  qualify  the  whole  series  of  miracles  recorded  in  this  chapter, 
which  we  are,  therefore,  to  conceive  of  as  performed  in  the  presence,  or 
at  least  in  the  vicinity  of  multitudes.  The  connection  with  the  fore¬ 
going  chapter  is  made  still  more  clear  by  the  original  construction  of 
the  first  words,  and  to  him  descending  from  the  mountain^  the  dative 
case  required  by  the  verb  in  Greek  being  afterwards  repeated  {followed 
hinfi)^  which  makes  the  first  almost  equivalent  to  a  genitive  absolute, 
he  descending  (or  having  descended)^  the  sense  of  which,  though  not 
the  form,  is  correctly  given  in  the  English  versions  {when  he  was  come 
down)  great  multitudes,  the  Rhemish  version,  more  exact  than  the 
older  one.  much  'peojple  (Geneva  Bible,  great  press  of  people),  bu^-  ad¬ 
mitting  of  still  further  improvement  by  the  literal  translation,  many 
crowds,  i.  e.  promiscuous  assemblages,  the  plural  perhaps  indicating 
not  more  individuals,  but  groups  and  gatherings  from  various  quarters. 

2.  And,  behold,  there  came  a  leper  and  worshipped 
him,  saying.  Lord,  if  thou  wilt,  thou  canst  make  me 
clean. 

This  first  miracle  appears  to  be  selected  on  account  of  the  peculiar 
nature  of  the  evil  which  occasioned  it.  A  leper,  one  afflicted  with  the 
leprosy,  a  painful  and  loathsome  cutaneous  disorder,  which,  although  a 
natural  disease,  appears  to  have  prevailed  in  a  preternatural  degree 
among  the  ancient  Hebrews,  so  that  heathen  writers  represent  it  as  a 
national  affection,  and  the  cause  of  their  expulsion  from  Egypt.  The 
identity  of  this  disease  with  any  now  known  has  been  much  disputed; 
but  the  latest  testimonies  favour  the  belief  that  it  continues  to  prevail, 
and  in  an  aggravated  form,  defying  all  attempts  to  cure  it,  even  by  the 
most  improved  and  scientific  modern  methods.  But  even  if  the  same 
disease,  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  it  prevailed  of  old  far 
more  extensively,  and  in  a  more  terrific  shape  than  it  ever  does  at 
present.  The  design  of  this  extraordinary  prevalence,  if  real,  was  to 


219 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  8,  2.  3. 

furnish  a  symbol  of  the  loathsomeness  of  sin,  considered  as  a  spiritual 
malady,  and  by  the  rites  connected  with  its  treatment,  to  suggest  the 
only  means  of  moral  renovation.  The  rules  of  procedure  in  such  cases 
form  a  prominent  part  of  the  IMosaic  law  (Lev.  xfii.  xiv.),  and  were  still 
in  full  force  at  the  time  of  Christ’s  appearance.  Besides  the  formal 
periodical  inspection  of  the  patient  by  the  priest,  and  the  puilfying 
ceremonies  incident  even  to  a  state  of  convalescence,  the  leper  was  ezv- 
cluded  from  society,  required  to  dwell  apart,  ancl  to  announce  his 
presence  and  condition  by  his  dress,  his  gestures,  and  his  words.  That 
this  law  was  applied  without  respect  of  persons,  is  apparent  from  the 
case  of  King  Uzziah,  who  was  smitten  v.uth  the  leprosy  to  punish  his 
invasion  of  the  priestly  office,  and  though  one  of  the  most  able  and 
successful  of  the  kings  of  Judah,  spent  the  remainder  of  his  life  in  a 
several  (or  separate)  house,  the  government  being  administered  by  his 
son,  as  Prince  Regent  (2  Kings  15,  5.  2  Chr.  2G,  lG-21).  The  lepers, 
therefore,  were  a  well-defined  and  well-known  class  of  sufierers,  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  all  others  by  the  circumstances  which  have  just  been 
stated,  and  holding  a  sort  of  middle  place  between  demoniacal  posses¬ 
sions  and  mere  ordinary  ailments.  There  was  no  doubt  much  curiosity 
in  reference  to  the  course  which  our  Saviour  would  pursue  with  respect 
to  these  unfortunates,  who  were  not  considered  as  entitled  even  to  ap¬ 
proach  him.  This  may  be  the  reason  that  Matthew  relates  the  healing 
of  a  leper  as  his  first  particular  example  of  the  Saviour’s  miracles.  Wor¬ 
shipped^  a  Greek  word  properly  descriptive  of  an  outward  or  corporeal 
action ;  in  the  first  instance  that  of  kissing,  more  especially  the  hand, 
or  kissing  the  hand  to  one,  as  an  act  of  homage ;  then  applied  by  He¬ 
rodotus  to  homage  as  performed  in  oriental  courts  by  kissing  the 
ground  or  by  entire  prostration  ;  and  then  to  homage  or  obeisance  in 
general,  whether  civil  or  religious,  which  is  also  the  old  usage  of  the 
English  'worship^  as  preserved  in  the  Marriage  Service,  and  in  ‘  wor¬ 
shipful,’  ‘  your  worship,’  as  official  titles.  There  is  no  reason  to  sup¬ 
pose  that  this  leper  meant  to  do  more  than  express  the  profoundest 
reverence  and  most  earnest  importunity.  The  precise  acts  of  homage, 
as  we  learn  from  the  other  gospels,  were  those  of  kneeling  (Mark  1, 
40)  and  falling  on  the  face  (Luke  5, 12).  This  implies  near  approach, 
if  not  immediate  contact,  in  direct  violation  of  the  Jewish  usage.  The 
beautiful  expression  in  the  last  clause  is  expressive  of  the  strongest 
faith  in  Christ’s  miraculous  power,  and  only  a  reasonable  doubt  of  his 
willingness  to  exercise  it  upon  such  an  object.  To  us  it  seems  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  course  that  he  should  cleanse  the  lepers  as  well  as  heal  the  sick ; 
but  it  was  in  fact  a  very  doubtful  question  till  determined  in  the  case 
before  us.  Wilt  and  canst  arc  not  mere  auxiliaries  but  distinct  and 
independent  verbs,  if  thou  art  willing  thou  art  able.  To  cleanse  (or 
purify')  me^  i.  e.  to  free  me  from  the  leprosy,  considered  not  as  a  mere 
disease,  but  as  a  symbolical  and  actual  defilement. 

3.  And  Jesus  put  forth  (his)  hand,  and  touched  him, 
saying,  I  will  ;  he  thou  clean.  And  immediately  his 
leprosy  was  cleansed. 


220 


MATTHEW  8,3.4. 


Under  the  influence  of  human  sympathy,  as  well  as  of  divine  con¬ 
descension,  he  complies  with  the  request  of  the  poor  leper,  Loth  by 
deed  and  word.  The  deed,  that  of  stretching  out  the  hand  and  touch¬ 
ing  him,  had  no  magical  intrinsic  power,  being  frequently  dispensed 
with;  but  it  visibly  connected  the  author  with  the  subject  of  the  mir¬ 
acle,  and  at  the  same  time  symbolized  or  typified  the  healing  virtue 
which  it  did  not  of  itself  impart.  The  words  which  accompanied  this 
gesture  correspond  to  those  of  the  leper  himself,  but  with  a  point  and 
brevity  which  make  them  still  more  beautiful  and  striking.  If  thou 
wilt,  ....  I  wdll.  Thou  canst  cleanse  me,  ....  Be 
cleansed.  The  version,  1)6  thou  clean^  though  perfectly  correct  in  sense, 
mars  the  antithesis  between  the  active  and  the  passive  voice  of  one  and 
the  same  verb  (Ka^a/jtVai,  Ka^apUr^rjrL).  The  effect,  as  usual,  was  in¬ 
stantaneous,  and  is  here  described  by  the  concise  expression,  that  his 
leprosy  was  cleansed^  which  is  equivalent  to  Mark’s  more  explicit  state¬ 
ment,  that  “  the  leprosy  departed  from  him,”  and  he  was  cleansed  or 
purified,  as  he  had  asked  and  Christ  had  promised,  both  in  a  physical 
and  moral  sense.  By  being  freed  from  the  literal  corporeal  foulness 
of  this  loathsome  malady,  the  leper  became  ipso  facto  free  from  the 
social  and  religious  disabilities  which  the  ceremonial  law  attached  to 
it,  and  needed  only  to  be  recognized  as  thus  free  by  the  competent 
authority. 

4.  And  J esus  saith  unto  him,  See  thoii  tell  no  man  ; 
but  go  thy  way,  shew  thyself  to  the  priest,  and  offer  the 
gift  that  Moses  commanded,  for  a  testimony  unto  them. 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  miracles  of  Christ,  that  they  were  neither 
preceded  nor  followed  by  unnecessary  words  or  acts ;  but  as  soon  as 
the  desired  change  was  wrought,  the  subject  was  dismissed,  to  make 
way  for  another.  So  here,  the  leper  is  no  sooner  cleansed  than  he  is 
sent  away,  with  an  earnest  exhortation  and  important  direction.  See, 
i.  e.  see  to  it,  be  careful,  be  upon  thy  guard.  Man,  supplied  in  such 
cases  by  the  English  version  limits  the  sense  too  much,  unless  ex¬ 
plained  as  an  indefinite  pronoun,  like  the  same  form  in  German.  The 
charge  here  given  was  not  one  of  absolute  and  permanent  concealment, 
which  w'as  not  only  needle.ss  but  impossible,  from  the  sudden  and  com¬ 
plete  change  in  the  man’s  appearance  and  the  subsequent  efiect  upon 
his  social  relations.  The  prohibition  was  a  relative  and  temporary  one, 
and  had  respect  to  the  more  positive  command  which  follows.  "Until 
that  direction  was  complied  with,  he  was  to  say  nothing.  This  con¬ 
nection  is  suggested  by  the  order  of  the  sentence,  “  see  thou  tell  no 
one  ....  but  go,”  &c.,  i.  e.  remain  silent  till  thou  hast  gone. 
This  was  no  doubt  intended  to  secure  his  prompt  performance  of  a 
duty  which  he  might  otherwise  have  postponed  or  omitted  altogether. 
This  was  the  duty  of  subjecting  himself  to  the  inspection  of  a  priest, 
and  obtaining  his  official  recognition  of  the  cure  which  had  been 
wrought  upon  him.  That  recognition  would  of  course  be  followed  by 


MATTHEW  8,4.5. 


221 


the  olierings  prescribed  in  the  IMosaic  law  for  such  occasions.  (Lev.  41, 
1-32.)  By  this  requisition  Christ  not  only  provided  for  the  full  au¬ 
thentication  of  the  miracle,  but  as  it  were,  defined  his  own  relation  to 
the  ceremonial  law,  as  a  divine  institution,  and  as  being  still  in  force. 
This  was  important,  both  as  a  preventive  of  malicious  charges,  and  as 
a  key  to  the  design  of  his  whole  ministry  or  mission,  which  belonged, 
at  least  in  form,  to  the  old  and  not  the  new  economy,  and  was  only 
preparatory  to  the  outward  change  of  dispensations.  (See  above,  on 
5,  17.)  This  is  the  meaning  put  by  some  upon  the  last  words  for  a 
testimony  (Tyndale  testimonial)  to  them^  i.  e.  as  a  proof  that  I  rev¬ 
erence  the  law  and  comply  with  its  requirements.  More  probably, 
however,  it  refers  to  the  fact  of  the  man’s  being  cleansed,  which  could 
be  fully  ascertained  by  nothing  but  official  scrutin}^  and  attestation. 

5.  And  when  Jesus  was  entered  into  Capernaum,  there 
came  unto  him  a  centurion,  beseeching  him, 

Of  the  natural  diseases  which  prevailed  among  the  Jews  when 
Christ  was  upon  earth,  one  of  the  most  common  seems  to  have  been 
palsy  or  paralysis  (the  former  word  being  a  corruption  or  modification 
of  the  latter),  either  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  modern  nosology,  or  in 
a  wider  one  including  what  is  now  called  apoplexy.  The  Greek  terms, 
'paralysis  and  pavalytie^  denote  according  to  their  etymology,  a  relaxa¬ 
tion  of  the  nerves  on  one  side.  This  class  of  our  Lord’s  miraculous 
healings  furnishes  the  next  case  in  the  series  now  before  us.  It  is  also 
remarkable  as  having  been  performed  at  the  request  and  on  the  ser¬ 
vant  of  a  Roman  officer,  as  well  as  for  the  praise  bestowed  by  Christ 
himself  upon  his  strong  and  discriminating  faith.  It  is  likewise  an 
example  of  miraculous  restoration  without  personal  contact  or  imme¬ 
diate  presence.  These  circumstances  are  sufficient  to  account  for  its 
selection  as  an  item  in  this  catalogue,  without  regard  to  its  chronology, 
which  Luke  expressly  fixes  as  immediately  subsequent  to  his  version 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and,  therefore,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
somewhat  later  than  the  similar  discourse  preserved  by  Matthew. 
(See  the  introduction  to  chs.  5-7.)  There  is  no  inconsistency,  however, 
as  Matthew  gives  no  such  chronological  specification  as  the  one  in  Luke 
(7,  1),  but  simply  says,  when  he  went  into  Capernaum^  literally,  to 
him  entering^  as  in  v.  1,  and  with  the  same  pleonastic  repetition  of 
the  pronoun  (avreo).  Now  as  Capernaum  was  the  centre  of  his  opera¬ 
tions,  to  which  he  frequently  returned  from  his  itinerant  missions 
(see  above,  on  4, 10),  the  expression  here  used  is  an  indefinite  one,  and 
necessarily  means  nothing  more  than,  as  he  was  (once)  entering  Ca¬ 
pernaum.  Besides  this  chronological  specification,  Luke  adds  some 
circumstances  not  preserved  by  Matthew,  and,  therefore,  not  essential  to 
his  purpose.  It  is  no  part  of  the  intei-preter’s  office  to  insert  what 
the  writer  has  thought  fit  or  been  directed  to  leave  out,  as  if  his  nar¬ 
rative  were  incomplete  without  it,  though  we  may  employ  it  to  illus¬ 
trate  and  explain  what  is  recorded,  and  especially  to  reconcile  apparent 
contradictions.  It  will  be  sufficient,  therefore,  to  observe  that  Mat- 


222 


MATTHEW  8,  5.  G.  7. 

tliew's  brief  account  of  the  centurion’s  application  to  our  Lord,  as  if  it 
had  been  made  in  person,  is  by  no  means  at  variance  with  Luke’s 
su['p]enjcntarv  account  of  the  intermediate  agency  by  'which  it  was 
presented.  All  that  was  necessary  to  the  purpose  of  the  former  was 
the  main  fact  that  a  Eoman  officer  did  so  apply,  and  as  he  simply  paves 
over  the  channel  of  communication,  but  says  nothing  to  exclude  it, 
there  is  no  ground  for  the  charge  of  contradiction  or  a  variant  tradi¬ 
tion.  The  form  of  expression  used  by  Matthew  that  he  came  to  (or 
approached)  him,  said  to  him,  &c.,  is  completely  justified  not  only  by 
the  legal  maxim  sometimes  quoted  {^ui  facit  'per  alium  facit  per  sc), 
but  by  all  analog}’-  and  usage,  where  the  speaker  or  writer  wishes  to 
direct  attention  simply  to  the  act,  and  not  to  its  attendant  circum¬ 
stances.  How  readily  and  naturally  might  one  writing  of  the  recent 
■^'ar  in  Europe,  speak  of  communications  as  directly  passing  between 
Louis  Napoleon  fand  Francis  Joseph,  when  in  fact  they  were  con¬ 
veyed  by  diplomatists  or  aides-de-camp,  and  how  absurd  would  be 
the  charge  of  contradiction,  if  a  later  and  more  regular  historian  should 
introduce  these  intermediate  agencies  omitted,  and  perhaps  not  thought 
of,  by  the  former  writer.  This  Avill  suffice  to  meet  the  charge  of  in¬ 
consistency  between  the  parallels.  The  minute  examination  of  Luke’s 
supplementary  details  belongs  to  the  exposition  of  that  gospel.  A 
centurion,  or  commander  of  a  hundred  men,  used  perhaps  with  some 
degree  of  latitude  for  the  leaders  of  divisions  in  a  Roman  legion.  The 
one  here  referred  to  was  most  probably  in  Herod’s  service,  and 
stationed  at  Capernaum.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  Roman 
Emperor,  the  real  sovereign  of  the  country,  had  his  military  represen¬ 
tatives  even  in  the  districts  nominally  governed  by  the  tetrarchs. 
Beseeching  him,^  a  Greek  verb  originally  meaning  to  call  on  (for  aid), 
or  in,  to  one’s  assistance,  but  secondarily  to  call  to.  in  the  way  of  ex¬ 
hortation  and  encouragement,  which  justifies  its  being  sometimes  ren¬ 
dered  comfort  (as  in  2, 18.  3,  4  above),  while  here  it  has  its  strict  and 
proper  sense. 

6.  And  saying,  Lord,  my  servant  lietli  at  home  sick 
of  the  palsy,  grievously  tormented. 

This  is  the  centurion’s  description  of  his  servant’s  case,  as  sent  to 
Christ  through  the  elders  of  the  Jews  (Luke  7,  3).  It  is  not  easy  to 
determine  in  particular  cases,  how  strong  a  meaning  was  attached  to 
the  word  Lord  (^Kvpie)  by  those  who  used  it.  As  on  one  hand  it  is  the 
Greek  equivalent  or  rather  substitute  for  the  name  Jehovah,  both  in 
the  Septuagint  and  New  Testament ;  so  on  the  other  it  was  a  common 
title  of  respect  or  expression  of  civility,  like  Domine  in  Latin  and  Sir 
in  English.  Intermediate  between  these  is  a  sense  nearly  correspond¬ 
ing  to  my  Lord,  and  implying  an  acknowledgment  of  more  than  ordi¬ 
nary  dignity  and  ranlv,  even  where  there  is  no  intentional  ascription 
of  divine  honours.  This  is  perhaps  the  true  sense  here  and  in  many 
other  cases,  where  our  fixed  associations  with  the  title  lead  us  natu¬ 
rally  to  assume  a  higher  meaning  than  the  speaker  really  intended  to 


MATTHEW  8,  7.  8.  9. 


223 


convey.  Servant^  literally,  an  idiom  found  also  in  the  Hebrew 
(iS'S),  French  {gargon),  and  certain  English  phrases  (e.  g.  post-doy),SiS 

well  as  in  the  use  of  hoy  itself  for  slave  in  our  southern  States.  This 
usage  in  the  Scriptures  throws  some  light  upon  the  application  of  the 
term  to  Christ  himself,  as  both  the  servant  and  the  son  of  God.  (See 
below,  on  12, 18.)  Lieth^  lies,  is  lying,  in  Greek  a  perfect  passive 
meaning  has  heen  thrown  {down)^  or  in  modern  phrase,  prostrated^ 
whether  figuratively  by  disease,  or  literally  on  a  sick  bed.  Athome^ 
the  phrase  used  in  all  the  English  versions  except  Wiclif,  which  retains 
the  Greek  form,  in  the  house^  i.  e.  my  house.  Side  of  the  palsy^  in 
Greek,  paralytic^  a  word  which  does  not  seem  to  have  been  used  in 
English  when  the  Bible  was  translated.  It  occurs  only  in  the  two 
first  gospels  (see  above,  on  4,  24),  Luke  employing  a  participle  of  the 
cognate  verb  {TrapaXeXoyevQs),  just  as  we  say  paralyzed  as  well  as 
paralytic.  Grievously,  or,  as  the  Greek  word  originally  means,  fear¬ 
fully,  terribly.  Tormented,  tortured,  in  extreme  pain,  a  verb  formed 
from  the  noun  translated  torments  in  4,  24.  and  there  explained. 


7.  And  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  I  will  come  and  heal 
him. 

Saith,  in  modern  English  says,  the  historical  or  graphic  present, 
calling  up  the  scene  as  actually  passing.  To  him,  i.  e.  to  his  mes¬ 
senger  (Luke  7,  6).  1  icill  come  and  heal  him,  literally,  I  coming 

(or  having  come)  will  heal  him,  i.  e.  I  am  ready  or  about  to  do  so,  un¬ 
less  hindered,  as  he  knew  that  he  would  be ;  so  that  the  future  does 
hot  express  actual  intention,  but  mere  willingness.  The  verb  trans¬ 
lated  heal  is  that  emploj^ed  above  in  4,  23.  24.  and  there  explained. 

8.  The  centurion  answered  and  said,  Lord,  I  am  not 
worthy  that  thou  shouldest  come  under  my  roof :  hut 
speak  the  word  only,  and  my  servant  shall  he  healed. 

And  answering,  the  centurion  said,  i.  e,  by  his  messenger,  as 
Christ  appi-oached  (Luke  6,  C).  Worthy,  literally,  enough,  of  suffi¬ 
cient  value,  good  enough.  Gome  under  my  roof,  or  honour  my 
dwelling  with  thy  presence.  SpeaTc  the  word,  i,  e.  the  word  of  com¬ 
mand  necessary  for  the  purpose ;  or  rather,  as  the  article  is  not  ex¬ 
pressed  in  Greek,  speah  a  word,  i.  e.  a  single  word,  as  all-sufficient, 
which  is  substantially  the  meaning  of  the  dative  (Aoyo.')  now  adopted 
by  the  latest  critics,  (in)  a  word,  or  in  the  use  of  one  word  only 

9.  For  I  am  a  man  under  authority,  having  soldiers 
under  me  :  and  I  say  to  this  (man).  Go,  and  he  goeth  ; 
and  to  another.  Come,  and  he  cometh  ;  and  to  my  ser¬ 
vant,  Do  this,  and  he  doeth  (it). 


224 


MATTHEW  8,  9.  10. 


This  verse  assigns  his  reason  for  believing  that  a  word  from  Christ 
would  be  sufficient  without  personal  proximity  or  contact.  For  I  am 
is  the  imperfect  version  of  the  Geneva  Bible ;  Tyndale  and  Cranmer 
have  it  more  exactly  ./br  I  also  myself  am.  “I  know  the  effect  of  an 
authoritative  order,  from  one  who  has  a  right  to  give  it,  by  my  own 
experience  as  a  soldier,  being  accustomed  both  to  command  and  to 
obey.”  These  two  ideas  are  expressed  by  the  words  under  authority^ 
(i.  e.  the  authority  of  others,  and  in  my  turn)  haring  soldiers  under 
me.  I  say,  i.  e.  habitually,  I  am  wont  to  say,  in  the  exercise  of  my 
authority  as  a  commander.  To  this  man,  literally,  this  {one),  an  expres¬ 
sion  simply  used  in  opposition  to  another.  Go  and  come  are  idiomatic 
or  proverbial  terms  for  action  in  general.  Servant  in  the  last  clause 
may  either  mean  a  soldier  in  attendance  on  an  officer  (see  Acts,  10,7), 
or  a  domestic,  as  distinguished  from  the  soldiers  before  mentioned. 
The  latter  is  more  probable,  because  the  Greek  word  (SoiXos.)  properly 
denotes  a  slave,  and  because  the  reference  is  here  to  doing,  i.  e.  serv¬ 
ing,  and  not,  as  in  the  other  clause,  to  going  and  coming,  i.  e.  march¬ 
ing.  The  whole  is  a  lively  and  laconic  picture  of  brief  command 
and  prompt  obedience. 

10.  When  Jesus  heard  (it),  he  marvelled,  and  said  to 
them  that  followed.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  have  not 
found  so  great  faith,  no,  not  in  Israel. 

The  original  order  is,  and  hearing,  Jesus  wondered.  To  reconcile 
omniscience  with  surprise  is  no  part  of  our  privilege  or  duty.  All 
such  seeming  contradictions  are  parts  of  the  great  mystery  of  godli¬ 
ness,  God  manifest  in  the  flesh  (1  Tim.  3,  16),  the  union  of  humanity 
and  deity  in  one  theanthropic  person.  However  incomprehensible  to 
oiir  finite  faculties  may  be  the  co-existence  in  one  person  of  the  divine 
logos  and  a  human  soul,  the  possession  of  the  latter,  if  conceded,  car¬ 
ries  with  it  all  the  attributes  and  acts  of  which  a  perfect  human  soul 
is  capable.  While  to  Christ’s  divinit}^  or  eternal  spirit  there  could 
be  nothing  new  or  strange,  to  his  humanity  surprise  and  wonder  were 
familiar.  It  may  also  be  explained  as  meaning  simply  that  he  saw 
what  would  have  produced  a  wonder  in  a  mere  man.  But  the  strict 
sense  is  more  natural,  and  no  more  incompatible  with  deity  than  the 
astonishment  imputed  to  Jehovah  in  still  stronger  terms  by  Isaiah 
(59,  16.  63,  5).  The  main  fact  here  is  that  the  case  was  wonderful, 
and  for  the  reason  given  in  the  next  clause,  with  the  prefatory 
formula  of  strong  asseveration,  Verily  (Amen)  I  say  unto  you,  and 
addressed  to  those  following,  not  merely  his  attendants  and  the  mes¬ 
sengers  from  the  centurion  (Luke  7,  6),  but  probably  the  multi¬ 
tude,  which  seems  to  have  been  never  far  off*  upon  such  occasions. 
(See  above,  on  v.  1.)  The  order  of  the  Greek  is,  not  even  in  Israel 
(the  chosen  people  and  the  church  of  God,  in  which  such  ffxith  might 
well  have  been  expected)  so  great  (or  so  much)  faith  have  I  found  (or 
met  with).  The  best  interpretation  of  these  words  appears  to  be  the 


A 


225 


MATTHEAV  8,10.11. 

simplest  and  most  obvious,  to  wit,  that  this  was  the  first  instance  of  a 
strong  faith  in  Christ’s  power  to  heal  even  at  a  distance,  and  that  this 
instance  occurred  not  among  the  Jews  but  the  Gentiles.  That  the 
centurion  w'as  a  proselyte,  i.  e.  a  professed  convert  to  the  true  religion, 
is  neither  affirmed  nor  necessarily  implied.  The  contrast  with  Israel 
rather  implies  the  contrary,  and  the  representation  of  the  Jewish 
elders  (Luke  6,  5),  only  proves  that  like  Cornelius  (Acts  10,  1)  he  was 
one  of  the  devout  and  serious  class  of  Gentiles,  wdio  treated  the  relig¬ 
ion  of  the  Jews  with  respect  and  perhaps  attended  their  worship. 

11.  And  I  say  unto  you,  That  many  sliali  come  from 
the  east  and  west,  and  shall  sit  down  with  Abraham,  and 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven : 

Nor  was  this  a  solitary,  accidental  case,  but  only  a  specimen  of 
what  was  to  occur  thereafter  on  a  grand  scale.  The  repetition  of  the 
formula.  I  say  unto  you^  is  very  significant.  ‘  Not  only  do  I  solemnly 
declare  this  Gentile  to  be  more  enlightened,  as  to  my  authority  and 
power,  than  any  Jew  whom  I  have  met  with  ;  but  I  also  solemnly  de¬ 
clare  that  this  superiority  of  faith  will  one  daj^  be  exhibited  by  multi¬ 
tudes.’  Shall  corne^  are  to  come  hereafter,  from  a  distance  or  ah  extra. 

j  j 

implying  that  at  present,  or  by  nature,  they  have  no  right  to  the  privi¬ 
lege  here  promised  or  predicted.  From  east,  and  icest^  literally, ris¬ 
ings  and  settings.,  also  use  i  in  the  classics  to  denote  these  quarters  of 
the  earth  and  heavens,  and  here  put  for  all  directions,  or  rather  for  the 
opposite  extremes,  betw'een  which  all  are  comprehended.  Sit  down., 
literally,  lie  down  or  recline,  a  luxurious  posture  introduced  among  the 
later  Greeks  and  Romans  from  the  east.  Among  the  ancient  Greeks 
as  well  as  Hebrews  sitting  was  the  universal  posture,  as  it  still  con¬ 
tinued  to  be  in  the  case  of  women  and  children,  while  the  men,  by 
whom  alone  convivial  entertainments  were  attended,  leaned  on  their 
elbows,  stretched  on  beds  or  couches.  This  was  also  the  fashion  of 
the  Jews,  when  our  Saviour  was  among  them,  and  the  use  of  the 
words  sat.  sat  down.,  sat  at  meat,  in  all  such  cases,  is  a  mere  accommo¬ 
dation  to  our  modern  usage,  the  very  same  verbs  being  rendered  lay 
or  lying  when  the  reference  is  to  sickness  (as  in  Mark  30,  2.  4.  5,  40. 
Luke  4,  25.  John  5,  3.  Acts  9,  33.  28,  8),  and  in  one  instance  leaning, 
where  the  true  sense  is  the  common  one  of  lying  or  reclining  (John 
13,  23).  The  image  here  presented  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  that 
of  a  sumptuous  banquet  or  luscious  feast,  representing  the  enjoyments 
of  Messiah’s  kingdom.  But  although  that  mode  of  description  occurs 
elsewhere  (e.  g.  Isai.  25,  6),  the  essential  idea  here  would  seem  to  be 
simply  that  of  near  domestic  intercourse,  admission  to  the  family  and 
all  its  intimate  relations,  as  denoted  by  participation  in  its  usual  repasts, 
or  as  we  say,  sitting  at  the  same  table,  without  explicit  reference  to 
dainty  food  or  to  extraordinary  festivities.  Ahrahani,  Isaac,  and  Ja¬ 
cob,  the  three  original  patriarchs,  still  represented  as  presiding  over  the 
great  family  descended  from  them.  As  this  family  for  ages  was  the 

10'- 


226 


MATTHEW  8,11.12.13. 


chosen  people  or  visible  church,  the  admission  here  predicted  is  not 
merely  to  national  or  civil  rights,  but  chiefly  to  religious  and  spiritual 
advantages.  This  is  therefore  a  distinct  premonition  of  the  great 
revolutionary  change  to  be  wrought  in  the  condition  of  the  Gentiles  by 
the  advent  of  Messiah. 


12.  But  tlie  children  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  cast  out 
into  outer  darkness  :  there  shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing 
of  teeth. 

But  even  the  admission  of  the  Gentiles  to  a  free  participation  in 
the  rights  and  honours  of  the  chosen  people,  however  repugnant  to  the 
narrow  selfish  prepossessions  of  the  carnal  Jews,  would  have  been 
comparatively  little  without  what  is  here  distinctly  foretold,  namely, 
that  the  change  would  be  an  exchange  or  an  interchange  of  places. 
Not  only  were  the  Gentiles  to  be  brought  in  from  without,  but  the 
Jews  to  be  cast  out  from  within.  The  children  of  the  Mngdom^  those 
who  seem  entitled  to  its  honours  by  hereditary  right,  as  the  descend¬ 
ants  of  the  Patriarchs  already  mentioned,  but  disqualified  or  disin¬ 
herited  by  not  partaking  of  their  faith.  (See  Eom.  4,  11.  16.)  Will 
he  cast  oif  or  expelled,  with  primary  reference  to  the  figures  of  the 
preceding  verse.  While  strangers  from  the  most  remote  and  opposite 
directions  are  to  take  their  places,  as  it  w^ere,  at  the  patriarchal  table, 
and  to  be  received  into  the  patriarchal  household,  its  natural,  hered¬ 
itary  members  will  be  forcibly  excluded  from  it.  Into  outer  darhness^ 
or  retaining  more  exactly  the  original  construction,  into  the  darlc^  the 
outer^  i.  e.  outside  of  the  house.  The  antithesis  is  not  so  much  with  the 
brilliant  lights  of  an  extraordinary  feast  as  with  the  ordinary  necessary 
light  of  any  comfortable  home,  the  loss  of  which  suggests  that  of  all 
other  comforts,  to  which  our  Lord  adds  the  prediction  of  more  positive 
suffering,  denoted  by  weeping  and  gnashing  (grinding,  grating)  of  teeth, 
as  natural  expressions  of  despairing  grief  for  what  has  thus  been  lost 
or  forfeited.  The  primary  conception,  not  to  be  lost  sight  of  in  our 
other  applications  of  the  language,  is  that  of  children  violentl}’’  torn 
from  the  table  and  ejected  from  the  house  of  their  father,  and  heard 
giving  vent  to  their  grief  and  rage  in  the  outside  darkness.  This 
beautiful  but  fearful  picture  is  greatly  marred  by  taking  outer  in  the 
modern  sense  of  utter  or  utmost,  i.  c.  uttermost,  extreme.  Utter,  as 
used  in  the  older  English,  is  synonymous  with  outer.  This  prediction 
of  our  Saviour  makes  the  case  of  the  centurion  a  type  of  national  and 
social  changes  of  the  highest  moment,  and  accounts  for  the  promi¬ 
nence  assigned  to  it  in  the  history  of  his  miracles.  The  absolute  ex¬ 
pressions  of  this  verse  are  neither  to  be  understood  as  simply  meaning 
many,  nor  as  excluding  individual  exceptions,  but  as  denoting  the  ex¬ 
cision  of  the  chosen  race,  as  such,  and  as  a  whole,  “  because  of  un¬ 
belief.”  (See  Bom.  11, 1.  20,  32.) 

13.  And  Jesus  said  unto  the  centurion,  Go  thy  way  ; 


227 


MATTHEW  8,13.14. 

and  as  thou  hast  believed,  (so)  be  it  done  unto  thee. 
And  his  servant  was  healed  in  the  selfsame  hour. 

Having  made  this  didactic  and  prophetic  use  of  the  centurion’s  faith 
as  typifying  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  our  Lord  does  not  forget  to 
give  it  present  and  immediate  etfect  in  the  case  before  him.  Oo  thy  way, 
an  ofd  English  phrase  used  by  all  the  Protestant  translators  to  express 
a  single  Greek  word  (yrraye)  meaning  simply  go  (as  Wiclif  and  the  Rhem- 
ish  Bible  render  it),  depart,  begone.  (See  above,  on  v.  4,  and  on  4, 
10.  24.  41,  in  all  which  cases  the  original  expression  is  identical.) 

As  thou  hast  Relieved,  or  didst  telievie,  in  making  this  request.  As  in 
the  fourth  petition  of  the  Lord’s  Prayer  (see  above,  on  6,  12),  the 
words  are  not  conditional  but  comparative.  The  sense  is  not,  because 
thou  hast  believed,  as  a  meritorious  ground  or  title  to  acceptance,  but 
in  accordance  and  proportion  to  thy  faith,  I  grant  thee  what  thou  hast 
desired  and  believed  me  able  to  bestow.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that 
in  this  as  well  as  later  instances,  the  faith  to  which  our  Lord  accord¬ 
ed  gifts  of  healing,  was  not  that  of  the  subject  or  the  patient,  but 
of  one  who  represented  him  and  interceded  for  him.  This  affords,  if 
not  a  formal  argument,  a  beautiful  analogy,  in  favour  of  baptizing 
children  on  the  faith  of  their  parental  sponsors,  or  of  others  standing 
in  loco  parentis.  The  immediate  effect  is  stated  in  the  last  clause. 
Hour  is  a  modification  or  corruption  of  the  Greek  word  here  used  and 
originally  meaning  any  definite  period  of  time,  whether  long  or  short, 
especially  if  measured  by  some  natural  standard.  Thus  it  is  applied 
to  the  seasons  of  the  year  and  the  divisions  of  the  day,  especially  the 
twelve  parts  of  the  natural  day  from  sunrise  to  sunset,  or  from  dawn 
to  dusk.  (See  John  11,  9.)  Here,  however,  and  in  other  like  cases, 
it  would  rather  seem  to  mean  a  moment,  or  more  indefinitely,  time, 
without  regard  to  its  precise  duration,  ‘  at  that  very  time  (or  in¬ 
stant  ’).  At  any  rate,  it  does  not  mean  that  the  cure  took  place  with¬ 
in  what  we  now  call  an  hour,  or  a  space  of  sixty  minutes,  but  that  it 
was  instantaneous.  (Compare  Luke  7, 10.) 

14.  And  when  Jesus  was  come  into  Peter's  bouse,  be 
saw  bis  wife's  mother  laid,  and  sick  of  a  fever. 

The  next  miracle  is  one  of  a  more  private  and  domestic  character, 
performed  in  the  bosom  of  a  family  with  which  our  Lord  had  now 
contracted  intimate  relations,  that  of  Simon  Peter,  whom  we  thus 
learn  incidentally  to  have  been  married  and  a  householder  at  Caper¬ 
naum,  in  conjunction  with  his  brother  Andrew  (Mark  1,  29).  This  is  not 
inconsistent  with  the  mention  of  Bethsaida  elsewhere  (John  1,  45),  as 
“  the  city  of  Andrew  and  Peter.”  They  are  not  here  said  to  have  been 
natives  of  Capernaum,  nor  even  to  have  long  resided  there.  As  the 
very  name  Bethsaida  means  a  fishery  or  place  for  fishing,  and  was 
common  to  more  villages  than  one  upon  the  lake  (Mark  6,  45),  it  is 
probable  that  Peter  and  his  brother  lived  there  while  engaged  in  that 
employment,  and  removed  to  Capernaum  when  Jesus  chose  it  as  the 


228 


MATTHEW  8, 14.  15.  16. 


centre  of  his  operations.  It  is  even  possible  that  Simon  opened  a  house 
there  for  the  convenience  of  his  Lord  and  Master  in  the  intervals  of  his 
itinerant  labours.  W/ien  Jesus  was  come^  literally,  Jesus  coming^  which 
means  nothing  more  than  as  he  once  came^  without  determining  the  time, 
which  is  fixed  in  the  parallel  accounts  (Mark  1,  29.  Luke  4,  38)  as  im¬ 
mediately  after  the  expulsion  of  a  demon  in  the  synagogue  and  prob¬ 
ably  soon  after  the  vocation  of  the  first  apostles.  (See  above,  on  4, 
18-22.)  Its  position  here  is  not  chronological  but  topical,  i.  e.  deter¬ 
mined  by  the  writers’  purpose  to  give  specimens  of  Christ’s  early  mi¬ 
racles,  exemplifying  different  kinds  and  classes  of  such  wonders. 
Wife’s  mother  is  in  Greek  a  single  word  corresponding  to  our  com¬ 
pound,  mother-in-law.  Laid^  in  Greek  a  stronger  word,  cast.^  thrown 
down,  prostrate,  or  confined  to  bed,  the  participle  of  the  perfect  pas¬ 
sive  used  above  in  v.  6.  Side  of  a  fever^  Tyndale’s  version  of 
another  participle,  from  a  verb  without  exact  equivalent  in  English 
(Vulg.  febricitantemf  though  akin  to  our  adjective  feverish,  q.  d. 
fevering.^  or  having  fever  (Wiclif:  shaken  with  fevers.  Rhemish 
Bible  :  in  a  fit  of  a  fever).  This  is  one  of  the  most  usual  and  uni¬ 
versal  forms  of  disease,  and  is  several  times  mentioned  in  the  New 
Testament  as  the  subject  of  miraculous  healing  (Besides  the  parallels, 
see  John  4,  52.  Acts  28, 8.) 


15.  And  he  touched  her  hand,  and  the  fever  left  her  : 
and  she  arose,  and  ministered  unto  them. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  centurion’s  servant  the  cure  was  WTOught  by  a 
word  spoken  at  a  distance,  showing  our  Lord’s  independence  of  all  out¬ 
ward  means  in  the  exercise  of  his  extraordinary  power;  so  here,  and 
in  most  other  cases  (compare  Luke  4,  ^.0),  he  was  pleased  to  indicate 
by  touch  and  gesture  the  connection  of  the  cure,  as  the  effect  pro¬ 
duced,  with  himself  as  the  producer,  a  connection  which  might  other¬ 
wise  have  been  disputed  or  uncertain.  Left  her^  a  much  stronger  word  in 
Greek,  the  same  that  is  employed  above  in  4, 11.  20.  22.  5,  24.  40.  and 
might  here  be  rendered,  let  her  go,  released  her.  Ai^ose,  in  Greek  a 
passive  form  {r^yip^rj)  strictly  meaning,  was  aroused,  as  if  from  sleep 
or  stupor.  (See  above,  on  2, 13.)  Ministered  unto  them,  or  waited  on, 
them,  served  them,  with  specific  reference  to  food.  (See  above,  on  4, 
11.)  For  them,  some  manuscripts  and  editors  read  him,  thus  confining 
her  attendance  to  the  person  of  our  Lord  himself.  Here  again  we  may 
observe  that  the  effect  was  instantaneous  and  complete  at  once,  without 
convalescence  or  progressive  restoration,  thus  distinguishing  the  mir¬ 
acle  from  all  natural  or  artificial  cures ;  and  also  that  as  soon  as  it 
was  wrought,  the  subject  w’as  restored  to  her  original  position,  and 
resumed  her  ordinary  household  duties.  (See  below,  on  9,  25.)  This 
is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  apostolical  paradox,  “  the  foolishness  of 
God  is  wiser  than  men.”  (1  Cor.  1,  25.) 


16.  When  the  even  was  come,  they  brought  unto  him 


MATTHEW  8,16,17. 


229 


many  that  were  possessed  with  devils  :  and  he  cast  out 
the  spirits  with  (his)  word,  and  healed  all  that  were  sick  ; 

One  of  the  commonest  and  grossest  errors  in  relation  to  the  mira¬ 
cles  of  Christ  is,  that  thej"  were  few  in  number,  or  that  they  are  all 
recorded  in  detail.  To  guard  against  this  very  error,  after  recording 
two  particular  miracles  of  healing,  Matthew  adds  a  general  statement 
of  his  other  miraculous  perfoi  mances  about  the  same  time,  from  which 
we  may  obtain  a  vague  but  just  idea  of  their  aggregate  amount.  In 
the  evening  of  the  same  day  upon  which  he  cured  the  fever  in  the 
house  of  Simon,  all  the  sick  of  the  city  were  collected  there.  (Mark 
1,  33.)  The  mention  of  the  evening  and  of  sunset  does  not  im¬ 
ply  any  scruple  on  our  Lord’s  part  as  to  healing  on  the  Sab¬ 
bath,  which  he  had  already  done  in  this  case,  and  both  did  and 
justified  in  other  cases.  (See  below,  on  12,  9-l3.)  It  might  more 
probably  imply  such  scruples  in  the  minds  of  the  people,  who 
would  then  be  represented  as  deferring  their  request  for  healing 
till  the  close  of  the  Sabbath,  at  the  setting  of  the  sun.  Even  this, 
however,  is  unnecessary,  as  the  fact  in  question  is  sufficiently  explained 
by  two  more  obvious  considerations :  first,  that  the  cool  of  the  day 
would  be  better  for  the  sick  themselves,  and  secondly,  that  some  time 
would  be  requisite  to  spread  the  news  and  bring  the  sick  together. 
Possessed  with  deoils^  literally  demonized^  or  under  the  control  of 
demons,  producing  by  their  personal  presence  either  bodily  disease  or 
mental  alienation,  or  the  two  together.  All  those  having  (themselves) 
ill,  or  being  in  an  evil  condition.  (Rhemish  version,  ill  at  ease.)  This 
may  either  denote  bodily  disease,  as  distinguished  from  mental  and 
spiritual  maladies,  or,  still  more  probably,  disease  in  general,  of  which 
the  most  distressing  form  is  separately  specified.  The  demoniacal 
possessions  were  undoubtedly  diseases,  but  of  a  preternatural  descrip¬ 
tion,  as  occasioned  by  the  presence  and  personal  agency  of  evil  spirits. 

17.  That  it  might  he  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by 
Esaias  the  prophet,  saying,  Himself  took  our  infirmities, 
and  hare  (our)  sicknesses. 

The  great  distinctive  feature  of  this  narrative  now  reappears,  the 
demonstration  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  by  showing  the  fulfilment 
of  the  ancient  prophecies  in  his  experience.  Reckoning  4, 14.  as  the 
fifth  direct  argument  of  this  kind,  that  before  us  is  the  sixth,  and  is 
the  more  remarkable,  because  entirely  wanting  in  the  parallels  (Mark 
1,  34.  Luke  4,  40),  which  give  the  same  account  of  the  healing  at  Ca¬ 
pernaum,  with  still  greater  fulness,  whereas  Matthew  seems  to  abridge 
that  statement,  as  if  to  make  room  for  his  favourite  prophetical  quotas 
tion.  The  continual  recurrence  of  this  difference  shows  clearly  the  in¬ 
dividuality  and  independence  of  the  writer,  and  the  existence  of  a  defi¬ 
nite,  consistent  purpose  in  the  narrative  before  us,  and  confirms  tho 
otherwise  most  probable  conclusion,  that  it  was  designed,  in  the  first 


230 


MATTHEW  8,  17. 


instance,  not  for  Gentile  but  for  Jewish  readers.  The  passage  quoted 
is  still  extant  in  Isai.  53,  4,  forming  part  of  the  clearest  and  most  di¬ 
rect  prediction  of  Messiah’s  sufferings  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  The  trans¬ 
lation  M^as  made  by  the  evangelist  himself,  being  much  more  exact 
than  the  Septuagint  Version.  The  only  departure  even  from  the  form 
of  the  original  is  in  the  substitution  of  the  specific  term  diseases^  in  the 
last  clause,  for  the  more  generic  pains  or  sorrows.  This  is  justified, 
however,  not  only  by  the  wider  use  of  the  Greek  word  (voaos)  in  the 
early  writers  (such  as  Hesiod),  but  also  by  the  obvious  correspondence 
of  the  Hebrew  word  to  one  in  the  preceding  verse  M^hich  properly 
means  sicTcness,  although  evidently  put  for  pain  and  suffering  in  general. 
Toole.,  received,  a  vague  term  rendered  more  specific  by  the  context, 
which  suggests  the  idea  of  taking  upon  him  or  assuming  as  a  load. 
This  is  clearly  expressed  by  the  other  verb  which  in  Greek  usage  com¬ 
prehends  the  acts  of  lifting,  carrying,  and  removing,  in  all  which  it  ex¬ 
actly  represents  the  Hebrew.  The  terms  are  evidently  drawn  from 
the  Mosaic  law  of  sacrifice,  a  necessary  part  of  which  is  the  substitution 
of  the  victim  for  the  actual  offender,  so  that  the  former  hears  the  sins 
of  the  latter,  and  the  latter,  in  default  of  such  an  expiation,  is  said  to 
bear  his  own  sins.*  The  application  of  these  words  by  Matthew  to 
the  cure  of  bodily  diseases  cannot  involve  a  denial  of  the  doctrine  of 
vicarious  atonement,  which  is  clearly  taught  in  20,28.  Nor  is  it  a 
formal  exposition  of  the  passage  quoted  in  its  full  sense,  but,  as  Calvin 
well  explains^ it,  a  hint  that  the  prediction  had  begun  to  be  fulfilled, 
because  already  its  effects  were  visible,  the  Scriptures  always  represent¬ 
ing  sorrow  as  the  fruit  of  sin.  The  miracles  of  Christ  were  not  in¬ 
tended  merely  to  relieve  human  suffering ;  for  then  why  should  they 
have  been  limited  to  three  short  years  and  one  small  country  ?  They 
were  also  designed  to  authenticate  his  mission,  and  to  furnish  his  cre¬ 
dentials  as  a  teacher  come  from  God  (John  3,  2) ;  to  rouse  attention  and 
prepare  the  minds  of  men  for  the  reception  of  the  truth  (John  C, 
2);  and  to  serve  as  types  and  pledges  of  spiritual  changes,  often 
actually  connected  with  them  in  experience  (see  below,  on  9,  5). 
Another  thought  suggested  by  this  passage  is,  that  all  the  philan¬ 
thropic  means  employed  by  individuals  or  by  society  at  large  for 
the  relief  of  human  suffering,  and  especially  of  that  produced  by 
bodily  disease,  are  but  continuations  of  the  work  begun  by  Christ 
himself.  The  medical  profession,  more  especially,  when  governed 
by  tight  principles  and  actuated  by  becoming  motives,  bears  the 
same  relation  to  our  Lord,  as  the  Physician  of  the  body,  that  the 
ministry  ought  always  to  sustain  to  him,  as  the  Physician  of  the  Soul. 
And  neither  this  profession,  nor  the  charities  of  life  in  general,  can 
ever  hold  their  proper  place  or  have  their  proper  influence,  till  brought 
into  a  due  subordination  and  dependence  upon  Him  who  ‘  Himself  took 
our  infirmities  and  bare  our  sicknesses.’ 

*  See  Lev.  5, 1.  17.  17, 16.  24, 15.  Num.  9, 13.  14,  33.  Ex.  23,  38.  Lev.  10, 1.  7 
16,  22.  and  compare  Lam.  5,7.  Ezek.  18, 19. 


MATTHEW  8,18. 


231 


\ 


18.  Now  when  Jesus  saw  great  multitudes  about  him, 
he  gave  commandment  to  depart  unto  the  other  side. 

Matthew  seems  here  to  interrupt  his  list  of  miracles,  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  recording  a  brief  conversation  which  has  no  direct  relation  to 
them,  and  is  not  even  chronologically  connected  with  what  goes  before, 
but  of  a  later  date,  as  appears  from  Mark’s  explicit  statement  (4,  35), 
that  the  miracle  which  followed  the  dialogue  here  given  was  performed 
in  the  evening  of  the  same  day  upon  which  our  Lord  delivered  several 
parables  recorded  by  Matthew  in  his  thirteenth  chapter.  The  difficulty 
is  not  one  of  discrepancy  as  to  time ;  for  Matthew  gives  us  no  date, 
merely  saying,  when  Jesus  saio  the  multitudes  about  him',  i.  e.  once  on 
seeing  them,  he  said,  &c.  The  only  difficulty  is  a  seeming  deviation 
from  the  plan  which  we  have  been  assuming,  and  a  consequent  ex¬ 
posure  to  the  charge  of  incoherence.  If  he  is  giving  us  a  series  of 
miracles,  as  samples  of  Christ’s  wonder-working  ministry,  and  pur¬ 
posely  abstaining  from  unnecessary  mention  of  his  teachings  or  dis¬ 
courses,  how  shall  we  account  for  the  abrupt  anticipation  of  a  dialogue, 
in  which  the  miracles  are  not  referred  to,  and  which  seems  to  have  oc¬ 
curred  long  after  the  occurrences  just  mentioned  ?  Why  is  it  intro¬ 
duced  at  all  in  this  catalogue  of  miracles,  and  w^hy  just  here  ?  It 
might  be  reckoned  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  former  of  these  questions, 
that  the  evangelical  tradition,  as  attested  both  by  Luke  and  Matthew, 
represents  this  conversation  as  immediately  preceding  the  miraculous 
stilling  of  the  storm,  and  that  Matthew,  wushing  to  record  the  latter, 
did  so  with  the  well-known  preface,  although  not  strictly  necessary  for 
his  purpose.  We  may,  however,  take  another  step  and  give  a  reason 
for  his  introducing  this  occurrence  with  its  inseparable  adjunct  just  at 
this  point  of  his  argument.  Having,  in  strict  accordance  with  his  cus¬ 
tomary  method,  cited  a  passage  of  Isaiah,  representing  the  Messiah  as 
a  sufferer,  and  sharing  in  the  sufferings  of  others,  he  shows  us  how  far 
this  view  of  his  mission  was  from  being  entertained  even  by  some  who 
sought  or  offered  to  be  his  disciples.  This  is  effectually  done  by  re¬ 
cording  the  two  incidents  or  dialogues  preceding  the  next  miracle  ; 
and  thus,  without  resort  to  any  forced  constructions  or  fortuitous  as¬ 
sumptions,  a  twofold  nexus  is  established,  first,  between  the  foregoing 
miracles  and  that  which  follows;  secondly,  between  the  dialogue 
which  precedes  the  latter  and  the  previous  quotation  from  the  writings 
of  Isaiah.  In  other  words,  the  stilling  of  the  storm  is  introduced  for 
its  own  sake  as  a  signal  and  peculiar  miracle ;  the  dialogue  preceding 
it  is  introduced  because  inseparable  from  it  in  tradition  and  the  memory 
of  men;  and  both  are  introduced  just  here,  because  suggested  by  the 
words  quoted  from  Isaiah  and  applied  to  our  Lord’s  miracles  of 
healing.  Seeing  many  crowds  about  him,  as  he  did  very  often,  so  that 
this  expression  does  not  necessarily  refer  to  the  time  of  the  preceding 
incident,  but  may  be  understood  as  meaning,  seeing  once,  or  at  a  cer¬ 
tain  time,  &c.  Gave  commandment  is  in  Greek  a  single  word,  com¬ 
manded,  i.  e.  his  disciples  or  immediate  followers,  now  in  habitual  at¬ 
tendance  on  him,  of  whom  four  are  known  to  us  from  4, 18-22.  DepaM, 


232 


MATTHEW  8, 18.  19. 


go  away,  i.  e.  from  Galilee  on  the  west  side  of  the  lake  and  river. 
The  other  side^  an  expression  almost  always  used  by  the  classics  in 
reference  to  water,  and  constantly  applied  in  the  Gospels  to  the  east 
side  of  the  river  Jordan  or  the  lake  of  Gennesaret,  which  division  of 
the  country  thence  derived  its  Greek  and  Koman  name,  Perea.  (See 
above,  on  4, 15.  25.  where  the  same  word  is  translated  beyond.') 

19.  And  a  certain  Scribe  came,  and  said  unto  him, 
Master,  I  will  follow  thee  whithersoever  thou  goest. 

This  passage  of  the  lake  is  particularly  mentioned,  not  as  any  thing 
extraordinary  in  itself,  but  on  account  of  the  miracle  to  which  it  gave 
occasion  ;  and  also  of  the  conversation  which  preceded  it,  from  which  it 
was  inseparable  in  the  first  tradition  of  the  gospel,  and  which  at  the 
same  time  has  a  natural  connection  with  the  previous  quotation  from 
Isaiah  (in  v.  7).  That  quotation  represents  the  Messiah  as  a  sufferer, 
assuming  our  distresses  as  the  fruit  and  penalty  of  sin.  But  this  was 
far  from  being  the  usual  or  prevalent  impression,  even  among  those 
who  offered  or  professed  to  be  the  followers  of  Christ.  This  is  here 
exemplified  by  a  single  instance,  in  which  a  Scribe,  an  educated  and 
professional  expounder  of  the  law  (see  above,  on  2,  4.  5,  20.  7,  29.) 
offers  to  follow  him  wherever  he  may  go,  expecting,  as  we  learn  from 
our  Lord’s  reply,  to  share  in  the  advantages  and  honours  of  the  king¬ 
dom  about  to  be  erected.  This  implies  at  least  a  partial  conviction 
that  our  Lord  was  the  Messiah.  That  such  belief  was  not  a  common 
one  among  the  class  to  which  this  man  belonged,  appears  to  be  sug¬ 
gested  by  the  numeral  one.,  which  can  hardly  be  a  mere  equivalent  to 
our  indefinite  article  {a  Scribe)  or  pronoun  (a  certain  Scribe).  For 
even  granting  such  an  usage  in  the  later  Greek,  why  should  it  occur 
in  this  and  a  few  other  cases,  some  of  which  are  doubtful,  as  they 
might  as  well  have  been  translated  So  in  this  case,  one  Scribe., 

or  a  single  Scribe,  suggests  that  among  the  many  who  about  this  time 
became  the  followers  of  Christ,  there  was  one  belonging  to  this  large 
and  influential  body,  which  as  a  whole,  was  among  the  strongest  counter¬ 
acting  influences  which  he  had  to  fight  against.  Master^  in  the  old 
and  proper  sense  of  teacher  (magister),  which  involves  a  recognition  of 
our  Lord  by  this  official  teacher  as  his  own  superior.  Folloic.  not  in 
the  bare  sense  of  locomotion,  but  of  personal  attendance  and  adherence 
as  a  disciple.  (See  above,  on  4,  20.  22.)  Whithersoever.,  to  whatever 
place,  into  whatever  situation,  even  the  most  dangerous,  but  no  doubt 
on  the  tacit  condition  that  he  should  participate  in  the  Messiah’s 
triumphs  and  the  glory  of  his  kingdom.  (See  below,  on  20,  22.) 
Goest^  or  more  exactly,  mayest  go,  the  idea  of  contingency  being  sug¬ 
gested  both  by  the  form  of  the  verb,  which  is  subjunctive,  and  b}'-  the 
indefinite  particle  before  it.  (See  above,  on  5,  11.)  It  is  not,  there¬ 
fore,  simply  an  offer  to  go  with  him  on  the  vovage  or  iourney 

*  See  above,  on  5,  41.  and  below,  on,  27,  14.  15.  and  compare  Mark  4,  8.  20. 
14,  51.  Acts  4,  32.  1  Cor.  6,  5.  Jas.  4,  13.  Rev.  18,  21.  19,  17.  22,  2. 


233 


\ 


MATTHEW  8,19.20. 

now  before  him,  which  would  not  have  been  so  forinally  and  solemnly 
proposed,  but  to  adhere  to  him  in  every  change  of  place  and  circain- 
stances,  until  his  kingdom  should  be  finally  established. 

20.  And  Jesus  saith  unto  liim,  The  foxes  have  holes, 
and  the  birds  of  the  air  (have)  nests ;  but  the  Son  of 
man  hath  not  where  to  lay  (his)  head. 

It  is  only  from  this  answer  to  the  Scribe’s  proposal,  that  we  learn 
its  real  character  and  spirit.  Taken  by  itself,  it  might  have  seemed  to 
be  a  perfectly  disinterested  offer ;  but  in  that  case  the  reply  would 
hardly  have  been  natural  or  relevant.  The  reply  itself  is  not.  as  it  is 
often  understood,  a  description  or  complaint  of  abject  poverty  or  total 
destitution,  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  certain  fact,  that  our  Lord 
had  many  friends,  that  some  of  these  possessed  the  means  of  comfort¬ 
able  living,  and  that  some  devoted  themselves  wholly  to  the  care  of 
his  person  and  supplj^  of  his  necessities.*  Nor  is  such  privation  ever 
named  among  the  griefs  or  sufferings  with  which  he  was  acquainted 
or  familiar  as  the  “man  of  sorrows”  (Isai.  53,  3).  The  words  before 
us  are  nothing  more  than  a  proverbial  description  of  an  unsettled, 
homeless  life,  in  contrast  with  the  life  which  this  “  one  Scribe  ”  may 

:  have  hoped  to  lead  as  his  disciple.  Foxes  and  birds  are  mentioned  as 

familiar  representatives  of  the  lower  animals  generally,  just  as  birds 
and  lilies,  in  the  Sermon  on  the  iMount,  are  put  for  animals  and  plants. 
(See  above,  on  6,  26.  28.)  The  essential  meaning  of  the  clause  is  that 
1  even  the  most  unimportant  animals  have  more  of  a  settled  home  than 

'  Christ  himself.  The  language  is  of  course  hyperbolical  but  natural 
and  beautifully  graphic.  Holes,  caves  or  dens  (so  Wiclif  here),  a 
word  used  in  the  classics  to  describe  the  lairs  and  haunts  of  wild 
beasts,  and  especially  of  bears.  Birds  of  the  air,  literally,  of  heaven, 
as  in  6,  26.  where  the  Greek  words  are  the  same,  and  where  they  are 
explained.  Nests  is  too  specific  a  translation  of  a  Greek  word  meaning 
shelters,  places  of  repose  and  safety,  whether  nests  in  the  strict  sense, 

1  or  the  branches  of  thick  trees,  or  any  other  similar  resort.  Bon  of 
:  man  cannot  simply  mean  a  man,  or  a  mere  man,  for  this  would  be 
untrue  in  fact,  since  the  want  in  question  does  not  pertain  to  men  as 
such  ;  nor  could  any  reasons  be  assigned  for  this  circuitous  expression 
of  so  simple  an  idea.  The  sense  of  man  hy  way  of  eminence,  the  model 
man,  the  type  and  representative  of  human  nature  in  its  unfallen  or 
restored  condition,  is  by  no  means  obvious  or  according  to  the  analogy 
of  Scripture,  and  at  most  an  incidental  secondary  notion.  The  true 
i  sense  is  determined  by  Dan.  7,  13.  where  the  phrase  is  confessedly 
applied  to  the  Messiah,  as  a  partaker  of  our  nature,  a  description  which 
itself  implies  a  higher  nature,  or  in  other  words,  that  he  is  called  the 
I  Son  of  man  because  he  is  the  Son  of  God.  This  official  application  of 
i  the  term  accounts  for  the  remarkable  and  interesting  fact,  that  it  is 
;  never  used  of  any  other  person  in  the  gospels,  nor  of  Christ  by  any 

*  See  below,  on  27,  57,  and  compare  Luke  8,  3.  10,  28.  John  11,  1. 


234 


MATTHEW  8,20.21. 

but  himself.  Even  Acts  7,  56  is  scarcely  an  exception,  since  the  words 
of  Stephen  are  a  dying  reminiscence  of  the  words  of  Jesus,  and  equiv¬ 
alent  to  saying,  ‘  I  behold  him  who  was  wont  to  call  himself  the  Son 
of  man.’  This  exclusive  use  of  the  expression  by  our  Lord  may  be 
accounted  for  by  the  consideration  that  it  is  not  in  itself  a  title  of 
honour,  but  of  the  opposite,  and  could  not  therefore  be  employed 
without  irreverence  by  any  but  himself,  while  he  was  upon  earth,  or 
in  a  state  of  voluntary  humiliation.  Hath  (or  ha8)  not^  in  the  proper 
sense,  possesses  not  or  owns  not,  or  at  least,  has  not  at  his  own  dis¬ 
posal  or  control  as  a  mere  man  or  a  member  of  society.  The  words 
are  often  understood  as  if  he  had  said,  hnows  not^  or  as  if  he  had  meant, 
has  not  within  reach,  has  not  access  to  ;  which,  as  we  have  seen,  would 
be  at  variance  with  the  known  facts  of  the  case.  We  have  no  reason 
to  believe  that  our  Lord  ever  suffered  for  the  want  of  a  night’s  lodging, 
except  when  he  voluntarily  abstained  from  sleep  for  devotional  or 
charitable  purposes.  Even  when  the  bigoted  Samaritans  refused  to 
entertain  him,  we  are  told  that  he  “  went  to  another  village  ”  (Luke 
9,  56).  To  lay^  in  Greek  another  case  of  the  subjunctive  syntax, 
strictly  meaning,  where  he  may  (or  can)  lay  (literally,  lean^  incline), 
Ms  liead^  (for  rest  and  sleep).  The  view  which  we  have  taken  of  these 
singular  expressions  has  not  only  the  advantage  of  making  them  con¬ 
sistent  with  the  facts  of  our  Lord’s  histor}^,  but  also  that  of  making 
them  appropriate  in  answer  to  the  Scribe’s  proposal,  prompted,  as  our 
Lord  at  once  perceived  it  to  be,  by  a  selfish  and  secular  ambition. 
Llowever  simple  and  demure  its  letter,  its  spirit  was,  ‘  I  am  prepared 
to  follow  thee  through  conflict  to  a  post  of  honour  in  thy  kingdom 
when  established.’  The  spirit  of  the  answer  is,  ‘  My  kingdom  is  not  of 
this  •world,  in  which  I  am  a  transient  pilgrim  and  without  a  home.’ 

21.  And  anotlier  of  liis  disciples  said  unto  him.  Lord, 
suffer  me  first  to  go  and  bury  my  father. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  form  of  the  expressions  here  used,  or  in  Mat¬ 
thew’s  usage,  to  forbid  the  supposition  that  this  second  dialogue  or 
conversation  took  place  at  another  time,  and  that  the  two  are  put  to¬ 
gether  on  account  of  their  resemblance,  and  their  serving  to  illustrate 
the  same  general  fact.  But  this  last,  as  we  shall  see,  is  not  exactly  the 
case,  and  as  both  are  joined  by  Luke  as  well  as  Matthew,  and  by  both 
placed  just  before  the  stilling  of  the  storm,  it  is  much  more  probable 
that  they  occurred  as  here  recorded,  at  the  same  time  when  our  Sav¬ 
iour  was  about  to  cross  the  lake.  That  two  such  offers  should  have 
been  made  on  one  occasion,  is  altogether  natural,  especially  at  such  a 
time  of  concourse  and  excitement.  Indeed  the  one  may  have  prompt¬ 
ed  the  other,  but  with  a  qualification  or  condition,  which  might  seem 
to  make  it  less  extravagant.  While  the  first  offers  to  go  anywhere  with¬ 
out  restriction,  the  second  does  the  same,  but  with  a  limitation  as  to  time. 
We  learn,  however,  from  the  parallel  account  (Luke  9,  59),  that  there 
was  still  another  and  more  striking  difference  between  the  case,  namely, 
that  in  one  our  Lord  repelled  a  voluntary  offer,  while  in  the  other  the 


MATTHEW  8,  21.  22. 


235 


\ 


disciple  made  conditions  in  obeying  a  command  from  Christ  to  follow 
him.  This  circumstance  is  not  preserved  by  Matthew,  showing  that 
he  merely  joins  the  two  occurrences  as  having  taken  place  at  the  same 
time  and  being  generally  similar,  although  the  second  does  not,  like 
the  first,  illustrate  the  prevailing  false  impressions  of  Messiah’s  king¬ 
dom.  Another  of  the  disciples,  not  in  the  restricted  but  the  wider 
sense  of  those  who  attended  his  instructions  and  acknowledged  his  au¬ 
thority,  all  which  is  implied  in  the  use  of  the  word  Master  by  the  Scribe 
in  V.  19,  and  that  of  the  word  Lord  by  the  disciple  in  the  case  before  us. 
Suffer,  not  the  verb  so  rendered  in  3,  15.  and  let  in  the  next  verse  here, 
but  one  originall}''  meaning  to  turn  over  upon,  then  to  turn  over  to,  com¬ 
mit,  entrust,  and  lastly  to  permit,  which  is  its  usual  sense  in  the  Greek 
of  the  New  Testament  First  does  not  qualify  this  verb  (‘  permit  me 
first,  and  I  will  obey  afterwards  ’),  but  the  verb  that  follows  (‘  first  to 
go  away  and  then  to  follow  thee’).  Bury,  in  the  wide  sense,  both  of 
the  Greek  and  English  verb,  including  not  the  mere  act  of  interment, 
but  all  funeral  honours,  the  entire  ceremonial  practised  in  disposing  of 
dead  bodies,  which  among  the  Greeks,  but  not  among  the  Jews,  in¬ 
cluded  burning.  Some  have  understood  this  of  a  duty  still  indefinitely 
future,  ‘  let  me  go  away  until  my  father  dies  and  I  have  buried  him.’ 
But  this,  besides  that  it  is  not  the  obvious  sense  conveyed  by  the  ex¬ 
pression,  would  be  both  absurd  and  disrespectful  in  reply  to  an  imme¬ 
diate  summons.  ‘  I  will  follow  thee  at  once,  if  I  may  first  go  and  wait 
until  my  father  dies.’  The  only  natural  construction  is  the  common 
one  assuming  that  his  father  was  already  dead  and  his  remains  await¬ 
ing  burial. 

22.  But  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Follow  me  :  and  let 
the  dead  bury  their  dead. 

Paradoxical  and  difficult  as  this  reply  has  always  been  consid¬ 
ered  with  respect  to  its  particular  expressions,  its  essential  meaning 
is  entirely  clear,  to  wit,  that  even  the  most  tender  obligations  and 
most  sacred  duties,  represented  here  by  that  of  a  son  to  honour  his 
father  with  a  decent  burial,  must  yield  to  the  paramount  demand  of 
the  IMessiah’s  service,  and  especially  to  his  immediate  positive  com¬ 
mand.  This  we  are  to  hold  fast,  as  the  certain  import  of  the  passage, 
in  considering  its  dubious  details.  The  only  serious  exegetical  ques¬ 
tion  to  be  solved  is,  whether  dead  is  to  be  taken  in  two  different 
senses,  or  twice  in  the  same  sense.  Both  opinions  are  ancient ;  but 
the  former  has  by  far  the  greater  weight  of  authority,  being  indeed 
almost  universally  adopted.  There  is  scarcely  less  unanimity  in  re¬ 
ference  to  the  first  sense  here  attached  to  dead.  The  notion  that  it 
means  grave-diggers,  or  the  buriers  of  the  dead,  is  only  entitled  to  be 
mentioned  as  an  exegetical  monstrosity.  With  this  exception  nearly  all 
who  give  the  word  two  senses  are  agreed  that  it  first  means  spiritually 
and  then  naturally  dead :  ‘  Let  those  who  are  dead  in  spirit  (or  in 
sins)  bury  their  friends  who  are  dead  (in  body).’  The  meaning  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  conveyed  by  this  command  or  exhortation  is,  that  there 


236 


MATTHEW  8,22.23. 


are  men  enough  in  a  natural  impenitent  condition  to  take  care  of  such 
things,  without  drawing  away  those  who  have  a  special  call  to  the  Mes¬ 
siah’s  service.  There  are  two  objections  to  this  common  understanding  of 
the  passage,  neither  of  which  can  be  regarded  as  conclusive,  although 
both  are  entitled  to  deliberate  attention.  The  first  is,  that  it  seems 
unreasonable  and  at  variance  with  the  spirit  of  true  religion,  to  de¬ 
volve  the  duty  here  in  question  upon  those  who  are  in  a  state  of  spiritual 
death  and  exempt  all  others  from  it.  This  objection  may  be  met  by 
explaining  the  words  as  a  hyperbolical  expression  of  the  thought,  that 
if  either  class  may  be  excused  from  such  a  duty,  it  is  those  who  owe 
conflicting  obligations  to  the  Saviour.  The  other  objection  is  one 
founded  on  the  general  law  of  language  and  canon  of  interpretation, 
that  the  same  word  must  be  taken  in  the  same  sense  when  repeated 
in  the  same  connection  and  especially  in  close  succession,  without 
some  urgent  necessity  for  varying  it.  The  existence  of  this  necessity 
in  this  case  is  the  real  point  at  issue.  In  other  words,  the  question  is, 
whether  by  taking  the  word  twice  in  the  same  sense  (that  of  naturally, 
literally  dead),  we  obtain  an  intelligible  meaning,  or  as  good  an  one  as 
that  afforded  by  the  usual  but  more  artificial  construction.  The  only 
meaning  yielded  by  the  former  process  is,  that  the  dead  should  be 
left  to  bury  themselves  or  one  another,  rather  than  withhold  a  dis¬ 
ciple  from  immediate  obedience  to  his  Lord’s  commands.  That  the 
thing  required  is  impossible,  only  shows  that  the  form  of  the  command 
is  paradoxical,  or  that  the  case  proposed  is  an  extreme  one  as  in  5,  29, 
30  above  and  in  19, 24  below.  It  is  then  equivalent  to  saying,  but  in 
the  strongest  and  most  striking  manner  possible,  that  if  the  dead  can¬ 
not  otherwise  be  buried  than  by  drawing  Christ’s  disciples  from  obey¬ 
ing  his  express  commands,  they  had  better  not  be  buried  at  all.  It  is 
probable  that  these  two  explanations  will  continue,  as  in  time  past,  to 
commend  themselves  to  different  judgments  as  entitled  to  the  prefer¬ 
ence.  It  is  the  more  important,  therefore,  that  the  great  principle 
evolved  by  both,  and  independent  of  the  question  in  dispute,  should 
be  held  fast  on  either  side.  Lei^  the  verb  translated  suffer  in  3, 15. 
leave  in  5,  24.  let  have  in  5,  40.  forgive  in  6,  12.  and  as  here  in  7, 4. 
All  these  meanings  are  reducible  to  one  radical  idea,  that  of  letting  go, 
and  all  combine  to  make  the  word  in  this  case  specially  significant,  by 
necessarily  suggesting,  over  and  above  that  of  remission,  the  idea  of 
leaving  or  abandoning,  which  might  indeed  have  been  included  in  the 
version  by  employing  the  word  leave  instead  of  let. 

23.  And  when  he  was  entered  into  a  ship,  his  dis¬ 
ciples  followed  him. 

The  evangelist  continues  his  enumeration  or  exemplification 
of  Christ’s  miracles  by  adding  one  demonstrative  of  his  control 
over  material  nature  or  the  elements,  to  wdiich  the  foregoing  dia¬ 
logues  were  introductory,  not  only  in  tradition,  but  in  point  of 
fact.  In  other  words,  they  really  preceded  it,  or  took  place  just  as  he 
was  setting  sail,  or  rather  on  his  way  to  the  vessel  for  that  purpose 


ft 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  8,  23.  24.  237 

(Luke  9,  57).  The  original  construction  is  like  that  in  ys.  1  and  5, 
to  him  entering^  literally,  stepg)ing  in^  a  kindred  compound  to  the  one 
in  Y.  1,  and  specially  applied  in  classical  usage  to  the  act  of  going 
aboard  a  Ycssel,  so  that  it  might  here  be  rendered,  embarhing.  Bhi-p^ 
in  the  wider  sense  of  vessel,  here  applied  to  a  hshing-boat,  as  explained 
aboYe,  on  4,  21.  The  Greek  noun  has  the  article,  not  a  boat,  but  the 
boaB  meaning  either  one  which  statedly  transported  passengers,  like 
what  we  call  a  ferry-boat,  or  one  habitually  used  by  our  Lord  and  his 
disciples,  perhaps  that  of  Andrew  and  Peter  (4,  18.  Luke  5,  3),  or 
another  specially  proYided  for  the  purpose  (Mark  3,  9).  His  disciples 
might  be  understood  to  mean  the  two,  with  whom  he  had  been  just 
conYersing  (ys.  19-22)  who  are  so  described,  expressly  or  by  implica¬ 
tion,  in  the  first  clause  of  y.  21,  and  who  are  then  represented  as  ad¬ 
hering  to  him,  notwithstanding  the  discouragement  which  they  had 
met  with.  And  these  two  disciples  followed  him,  as  one  had  offered 
and  the  other  been  commanded.  But  the  usual  or  rather  universal 
understanding  of  the  words,  and,  therefore,  the  more  obvious,  as  well  as 
that  suggested  by  the  parallels  (Mark  4, 36.  Luke  8,  22),  refers  them 
to  those  who  were  already  his  habitual  attendants,  such  as  Simon  and 
Andrew,  James  and  John  (4,  18-22),  and  perhaps  Philip  and  Natha¬ 
niel  (John  1,  43-45),  or  the  whole  body  of  the  twelve,  if  we  suppose 
that  Matthew  here  relates  the  incident  by  anticipation,  and  that  its 
chronology  is  more  exactly  given  by  the  other  two  evangelists.  (See 
above,  on  v.  18.)  Followed  must  then  be  taken,  not  in  the  higher 
sense  of  adherence  or  discipleship,  but  in  the  lower  one  of  joint  loco¬ 
motion  or  companionship,  nearly  corresponding  to  attended  or  accom¬ 
panied.  Here,  for  the  first  time  since  the  call  of  the  two  pairs  of  bro¬ 
thers  (4, 18-22),  we  have  a  threefold  narrative  of  one  occurrence,  and 
shall  make  use  of  the  parallel  accounts,  not  to  improve  or  even  to 
complete  the  one  before  us,  for  it  stands  in  need  of  neither  process, 
but,  as  far  as  may  be  necessary,  to  illustrate  and  explain  it.  (See  above, 
on  V.  5.) 

24.  And  behold,  there  arose  a  great  tempest  in  the 
sea,  insomuch  that  the  ship  ¥7as  covered  with  the  waves  : 
but  he  was  asleep. 

Behold  (or  lo  !')  as  usual  prepares  the  way  for  something  new  and 
unexpected.*  Arose.,  was,  began  to  be,  or  happened.f  Tempest^  Tyn- 
dale’s  version  of  a  word  which  usually  means  an  earthquahe  and  is 
always  so  translated  elsewhere,!  but  which,  according  to  its  etymology, 
means  any  great  commotion,  whether  in  the  water,  air,  or  earth.  It 
is  not  the  same  with  the  storm  of  wind  mentioned  in  both  parallels 
(IMark  4,  37.  Luke  8,  23),  but  rather  its  effect  upon  the  waters  of  the 
lake,  wdiich  were  vehemently  moved  and  shaken.  (Wiclif:  a  great 

*See  above,  on  1,  20.  23.  2,  1.  9.  13.  19.  3,  16.  17.  4,  11.  7,  4.  S,  2. 

f  See  above,  on  vs.  13.  16.  and  on  1,  22.  4,  3.  5,  18.  45.  6,  10.  16.  7 ,  28. 

jSee  below,  on  24,  7.  27,  54.  28,  2. 


238 


MATTHEW  8,24.25. 


stirring.')  Insomuch  that.,  a  now  obsolete  equivalent  to  so  that^  used 
below  (v.  28)  to  represent  the  same  Greek  particle  (wo-re),  which 
serves  to  connect  two  verbs,  when  the  second  expresses  the  effect  or 
consequence  of  the  first.  The  last  verb  is  usually  in  the  infinitive, 
a  form  which  may  be  retained  in  English  when  the  verb  is  active  (so 
as  to  cover),  but  when  it  is  passive,  as  in  this  case  (so  as  the  vessel  to 
be  covered),  must  be  modified  as  in  the  common  version.  This  might 
seem  to  mean  the  occasional  washing  of  the  waves  over  a  deck,  or 
what  is  technically  called  in  English  sea-phrase,  ‘  shipping  seas  ;  ’  but 
there  was  probably  no  deck  to  these  boats,  and  we  learn  from  the  par¬ 
allels  that  the  one  in  this  ca,se  was  already  filled,  and  therefore  in 
great  danger  (Mark  4,  37.  Luke  8,  23).  But  Ae,  with  emphasis,  in 
contrast  with  the  rest  who  were  awake  and  full  of  terror.  Was  asleep. 
literally,  slept^  was  sleeping,  not  merely  in  appearance,  but  in  reality. 
His  human  nature  was  refreshed  by  sleep,  like  that  of  other  men,  while 
his  divinity  (as  Calvin  says)  was  watching.  As  this  sleep,  although 
natural,  was  subject  to  his  will,  we  may  assume  that  he  indulged  it  for 
the  very  purpose  of  enhancing  the  impression  to  be  made  by  the  ensu¬ 
ing  miracle. 

25.  And  his  disciples  came  to  (him),  and  awoke  him, 
saying.  Lord,  save  us  :  we  jperish. 

Left  to  themselves  in  this  extremity,  they  naturally  look  to  Jesus 
for  protection.  For  his  disciples  some  editions  read  (without  the  pro¬ 
noun)  the  disciples ;  others  omit  disciples  altogether;  while  the  very 
latest  also  omits  coming  to  on  the  authority  of  the  Codex  Yati- 

canus  and  several  of  the  oldest  versions.  The  text  will  then  be  sim¬ 
ply,  they  awolce  him.,  raised  him  up,  aroused  him.  (See  above,  on  v.  15. 
2,  13.  3,  9.)  Lord.,  the  same  indefinite  expression,  used  so  often  in  the 
Gospels  and  explained  above  (on  v.  5),  but  here  determined  by  the 
parallels  to  mean  their  own  Lord,  or  Master,  i.  e.  teacher  (Mark  4,  38) 
and  overseer  or  prefect  (Luke  8,  24).  Bare  us  here  means  rescue  us, 
deliver  us  from  this  impending  danger ;  which  differs  only  in  its  appli¬ 
cation  or  the  nature  of  the  peril  from  the  higher  sense  of  salvation. 
These  two  words  (crScror  rjiJias)  are  also  omitted  in  theYatican  and 
Paris  codices  and  in  the  latest  critical  editions.  We  perish,  not  in 
general,  at  some  time,  but  at  present,  we  are  perishing.,  at  this  time, 
even  while  we  speak.  This  word  (d7roAX7/xea)  is  common  to  all  three 
accounts,  which  is  the  more  remarkable  because  the  others  vary, 
though  without  effect  on  the  essential  meaning.  The  verb  itself  is  that 
used  actively  in  2,  13^  {to  destroy),  and  as  here  in  5,  29.  30.  It  is 
equivalent  to  saying,  we  are  lost,  or  we  are  going  to  destruction.  The 
connection  with  the  preceding  verb  is  not  the  conditional  or  alternative 
one  expressed  in  the  refrain  of  Heber’s  beautiful  hymn,  Save  or  loe 
perish.  This  is  really  implied  but  not  expressed  in  the  original,  the 
last  verb  there  denoting  not  a  mere  contingency  or  even  a  certain 
futurity,  but  a  present  reality,  to  wit,  that  they  were  perishing  al¬ 
ready,  as  a  reason  for  invoking  him  to  save  them. 


239 


MATTHEW  8,26. 

26.  And  lie  said  unto  them.  Why  are  ye  fearful,  0 
ye  of  little  faith  ?  Then  he  arose,  and  rebuked  the 
winds  and  the  sea  ;  and  there  was  a  great  calm. 

The  word  here  rendered  fearful^  has  in  Greek  a  strong  and  bad 
sense,  that  of  cowardly  or  craven,  so  that  in  the  dialect  of  Homer  it  is 
sometimes  secondarily  employed  to  mean  wretched  on  the  one  hand  or 
worthless  on  the  other.  There  is  a  near  approach  to  this  in  the  only 
other  instance  of  its  use  in  the  New  Testament  besides  the  one  before 
us  and  its  parallel  in  iMark  4,  40.  namehg  Ilev.  21,  8.  where  it  stands 
first  in  a  catalogue  of  characters,  whose  portion  is  the  lake  of  fire  and 
the  second  death.  But  even  there  it  has  not  so  much  the  classical  as 
the  scriptural  meaning,  as  suggested  by  the  next  word,  unbelieving^ 
which  is  not  to  be  diluted  into  faithless  or  unfaithful,  but  taken  in  its 
usual  and  proper  sense,  as  meaning  destitute  of  faith,  and  thus  ex¬ 
plaining  which  precedes  it  to  mean  fearful  from  that  ver}'  desti¬ 

tution.  This  agrees  exactly  with  the  case  before  us,  \vhere  the  ques¬ 
tion  implies  censure  arid  disapprobation,  not  because  there  was  no 
danger,  or  because  they  had  no  right  to  be  alarmed,  but  because  their 
danger,  although  real  (as  expressly  stated  in  Luke  8,  53),  and  their 
alarm,  although  natural  and  not  irrational,  ought  to  have  been  neutral¬ 
ized  and  nullified  by  his  presence,  and  by  confidence  in  his  ability  and 
willingness  to  save  Brem.  This  trust  may  have  been  weakened  or  sus¬ 
pended  by  the  fiict  that  he  was  then  asleep ;  but  this  could  only  prove 
the  weakness  of  their  faith  in  limiting  his  power  to  a  wakeful  state. 
Oh  ye  (supplied  by  all  the  English  versions  since  Tyndale)  of  little 
faiths  a  single  compound  word  in  Greek,  the  same  with  that  in  6.  30. 
and  here  as  there  implying  the  possession  of  some  faith,  however  feeble, 
which  must  be  allowed  to  define  and  qualify  the  seeming  intimation  of 
the  contrary  in  Mark  4,  40.  or  fishermen  would  not  have  been  alarmed 
and  talked  of  danger:  little  faith  is  faith  after  all ;  but  ought  to  become 
great  faith.*  Then,  after  thus  rebuking  their  excessive  unbelieving 
fear,  which  shows  that  the  next  word,  although  strictly  meaning 
roused,  does  not  relate  here  to  his  waking  but  to  his  rising,  as  in  v. 
15  above,  and  is  therefore  correctly  given  in  the  English  version  as  to 
sense,  although  the  form  in  Greek  is  participial  {arising,  having  risen), 
belonging  to  the  verb  in  the  preceding  verse.  Rebuked,  not  merely  in 
act,  as  the  corresponding  Hebrew  verb  does  sometimes  mean,  but 
in  word,  as  if  addressed  to  rational  agents,  from  which  some  infer 
that  the  storm  was  raised  by  Satan  and  his  demons,  who  were  then 
the  real  objects  of  the  objurgation.  This  may  seem  to  be  favoured, 
and  was  perhaps  suggested,  by  the  sameness  of  our  Lord’s  words  as 
recorded  by  Mark  (4,  39)  and  those  addressed  to  a  demoniac  in  the 
same  gospel  (1,  25).  There  was,  began  to  be,  or  came  to  pass,  a  great 
calm,  i.  e,  a  perfect  stillness  of  the  sea,  so  lately  agitated  by  the  wind. 

*  Wiclif’s  version  of  this  clause,  although  antique  in  form,  is  strikingly  ex¬ 
pressive  :  What  hen  ye  (i.  e.  why  are  you)  of  little  faith  aghast  ? 


240 


MATTHEW  8,26.27. 

(Wiclif:  a  great  ‘peaceableness?)  ydXr^vq  from  yekaoi.  cf.  leni  plan- 
gore  cacliinni  (Catullus),  and  Kvjjt.dTcov  dvqpi^jxov  yeXacrpa  (Aeschylus). 

27.  But  the  men  marvelled,  saying,  What  manner 
of  man  is  this,  that  even  the  winds  and  the  sea  obey 
him  ! 

Here  again,  the  men  might  be  supposed  to  mean  the  two  new  fol¬ 
lowers  or  disciples  of  vs.  19-22  (see  above,  on  v.  23),  so  described  to 
distinguish  them  from  those  of  longer  standing — ‘  and  the  (two)  men 
wondered.’  This  is  certainly  at  first  sight  more  natural  than  to  apply 
the  phrase  to  all  our  Lord’s  disciples,  even  if  we  understand  the  men 
to  mean  the  {mere)  men^  as  distinguished  from  himself.  A  third  ex¬ 
planation,  now  perhaps  the  current  one,  at  least  among  the  Germans, 
understands  by  the  men  the  crew  or  sailors  of  the  vessel,  as  distin¬ 
guished  from  the  passengers.  The  objection  to  this  is^not  that  there 
were  no  such  men  there,  which  is  a  dubious  assumption,  but  that  in 
both  the  parallels  (Mark  4,  41.  Luke  8,  25),  the  same  words  seem  to  be 
expressly  or  by  necessary  implication  put  into  the  mouths  of  the  same 
persons  who  had  roused  our  Lord  and  been  upbraided  by  him  for  their 
unbelieving  fear.  On  the  whole,  therefore,  it  seems  best  to  under¬ 
stand  the  men  as  a  collective  or  indefinite  expression  for  the  whole 
ship’s  company,  or  all  those  present,  without  attempting  to  determine 
whether  it  consisted  solely  of  our  Lord’s  disciples,  or  whether  among 
these  are  to  be  reckoned  the  two  mentioned  in  the  previous  context. 
What  manner  (i.  e.  hind?)  of  man  is  found  substantially  in  Wiclif  and 
exactly  in  Cranmer;  whereas  Tyndale  has  what  man?  and  the  Ehe- 
mish  Bible  what  an  one  ?  The  Greek  word  strictly  means  what  coun¬ 
tryman,  belonging  to  w’hat  place  or  region,  but  as  early  as  Demos¬ 
thenes  had  got  the  wider  sense  attached  to  it  in  this  place,  though  the 
other  is  not  inadmissible,  as  they  may  possibly  have  meant  to  ask  pre¬ 
cisely  whence  or  from  what  land  he  was.  In  either  sense,  the  words  are 
not  unnatural  or  misplaced  even  in  the  mouths  of  the  disciples,  who  are 
not  then  to  be  understood  as  expressing  any  ignorance  or  doubt  as  to  the 
person  of  their  master,  but  unfeigned  astonishment  at  this  new  proof  of 
his  control,  not  only  over  demons  and  diseases,  but  also  over  winds  and 
waves,  which  they  had  seen  like  human  slaves,  obey  him  at  a  word.  How 
appropriate  to  fishermen  !  That  seems  here  equivalent  to  so  that^  which 
is  not  however  an  authorized  usage  of  the  Greek  word  (oVt),  meaning 
properly  because^  and  here  perhaps  assigning  a  reason  for  the  question 
which  precedes — ‘  (We  ask  this)  because  the  winds  and  sea  obey  him  V 
Eten^  or  as  Tjmdale  renders  it,  both  winds  and  sea  ;  but  as  the  wonder 
was  not  that  the  wind  as  well  as  the  sea  obeyed  him,  for  if  one  did 
the  other  might  be  expected  to  do  likewise,  but  that  the  winds  and 
sea,  as  well  as  demons  and  diseases,  thus  obeyed  him.  the  best  trans¬ 
lation  of  the  particle  is  too  or  also  (Hhc  winds  and  sea  too  obey 
him’),  which  is  equally  accordant  with  Greek  usage,  and  only  differs 
from  the  common  version  {even)  in  being  more  specific.  Even  the 
winds  and  sea  (as  well  as  other  things  not  specified.)  The  winds  and 


MATTHEW  8,27.28, 


241 


sea  too  (in  addition  to  things  previously  mentioned).  Obey,  an  expres¬ 
sive  compound  Greek  verb  originally  meaning  to  hear  under^  i.  e.  to 
listen  with  subraissiveness.  The  English  verb  is  only  deficient  in  sug¬ 
gesting  the  radical  idea  of  the  Greek  one,  that  of  hearing,  which  in 
Hebrew  also  often  runs  into  the  notion  of  obeying.  This  last  clause 
may  suggest  the  evangelist’s  reason  for  adducing  this  particular 
example  of  Christ’s  miracles,  to  wit,  that  he  might  thus  complete  his 
series  of  examples,  not  promiscuously  taken  but  selected  out  of  many, 
for  the  purpose  of  presenting  in  a  new  light  his  dominion  over  every 
form  of  evil,  as  well  natural  as  moral. 

28.  And  when  he  was  come  to  the  other  side,  into  the 
country  of  the  Gergesenes,  there  met  him  two  possessed 
with  devils,  coming  out  of  the  tombs,  exceeding  fierce, 
so  that  no  man  might  pass  by  that  way. 

All  three  evangelists  agree  in  placing  next  to  this  miraculous  still¬ 
ing  of  the  storm,  as  having  actually  and  directly  followed  it  in  time,  an 
extraordinary  case  of  dispossession,  claiming  on  several  accounts  to  be 
selected  and  distinguished  from  the  many  cures  of  this  sort  which  our 
Lord  appears  to  have  performed.  (See  above,  on  v.  16,  and  on  4,24.) 

’  Of  the  three  accounts,  Mark’s  is  much  the  most  detailed,  and  Matthew’s 
the  most  concise,  which  shows  that  some  of  the  particulars  recorded 
i  by  the  others  were  not  necessary  for  his  purpose ;  and  we  are  not  at 
!  liberty  to  destroy  the  distinctive  character  of  the  narrative  by  em- 
bodying  in  its  text  what  the  writer  chose  or  was  directed  to  leave  out, 

I  although  we  may  employ  it  to  illustrate  and  explain  what  is  inserted, 
i  The  grand  peculiarity  of  this  transaction,  common  to  all  three  accounts, 
j  is  that  it  consisted  in  the  dispossession  of  a  multitude  of  demons,  and 
their  entrance  into  lower  animals,  with  Christ’s  permission,  or  at  his 
command.  The  scene  of  this  remarkable  occurrence  w^as  on  the  east 
side  of  the  lake  called  by  Mark  (5,1)  and  Luke  (8,26)  the  land  or, 
■  district  of  the  Gadarenes^  so  named  from  Gadara^  a  strong  and  wealthy 
city  of  Perea,  not  mentioned  in  Scripture  but  described  by  Josephus 
as  a  Greek  town,  i.  e.  probably  inhabited  by  Gentiles.  It  was  attach¬ 
ed  to  Herod’s  jurisdiction  by  Augustus,  but  annexed  to  Syria  both 
before  and  afterwards.  The  highest  modern  geographical  authorities 
identify  it  with  extensive  ruins  at  a  place  called  XJmkeis,  on  a  moun¬ 
tainous  range  east  of  Jordon,  near  the  southern  end  of  the  lake  and 
overlooking  it.  The  district  appears  to  have  had  other  names,  de¬ 
rived  from  towns  or  tribes,  one  of  which  has  been  preserved  by  Mat- 
i  thew,  though  the  reading  here  is  doubtful.  The  common  text  is  Ger¬ 
gesenes  (Vepyecr-qvoiv),  probably  identical  with  (Tepy^aaiwv)^  the  Sep- 
tuagint  form  of  the  Hebrew  Girgashite  one  of  the  Canaan- 

I  itish  tribes  destroyed  by  Israel  at  the  conquest  of  the  Promised  Land 
(Gen.  15,21.  Deut.  7, 1.  Josh.  24, 11).  According  to  Josephus,  only 
the  name  survived,  and,  therefore,  might  be  used  here  to  describe  the 
j  tract  or  region,  as  that  possessed  by  the  Girgashites  of  old,  without 

11 


242 


MATTHEW  8,28. 

assuming  the  existence  of  a  town  called  Gergesa^  which  seems  to  nest 
upon  the  unconfirmed  authority  of  Origen,  and  may  have  been 
imagined  or  invented  by  him,  to  support  his  emendation  of  the  text, 
consisting  in  the  substitution  of  the  present  reading  {Gergesenes)  for 
what  he  represents  himself  as  actual  and  ancient  readings  {GoA- 
arenes  and  Gerasenes),  The  first  of  these,  which  he  describes  as 
found  in  only  a  few  copies,  is  now  the  reading  of  the  Vatican  and  Paris 
codices,  of  the  Peshito  or  old  Syriac  version,  and  of  the  latest  critical 
editions,  which  in  Mark  and  Luke  have  Gerasenes.  This  last  appears 
to  have  been  the  text  of  Matthew  also,  as  exhibited  by  most  old  copies 
in  the  time  of  Origen,  and  still  found  in  the  Vulgate  and  Salcidic  ver¬ 
sions,  and  in  citations  of  the  verse  by  Athanasius  and  Hilary.  It  has 
reference  to  Gerasa^  a  town  of  the  Hecapolis  (see  above,  on  4,  25), 
near  the  eastern  frontier  of  Perea,  and  the  edge  of  the  desert,  describ¬ 
ed  by  Josephus,  as  rich  and  populous,  in  which  he  is  corroborated  by 
existing  ruins  at  a  place  which  bears  the  slightly  altered  name  of 
Jerash.  The  objection  to  this  reading,  that  the  town  in  question  was 
too  distant  from  the  lake-shore  where  the  miracle  is  said  to  have  been 
wrought,  can  only  be  disposed  of  by  assuming  that  a  large  tract,  lo¬ 
cally  adjacent  or  politically  subject  to  the  city,  bore  the  same  name, 
which  may  seem  to  be  confirmed  by  Jerome’s  statement,  that  in  his 
day  the  name  of  Gerasa  was  given  to  the  ancient  Gilead.  This  whole 
question,  although  critically  curious,  is  exegetically  unimportant,  since 
there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  main  fact,  that  what  is  here  recorded 
took  place  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake  and  opposite  to  Galilee  (Luke  8, 
26).  Possessed  with  devils,  literall}^  demonized,  the  same  expressive 
participle  used  above  in  v.  1 6,  and  previously  in  4,  24.  The  statement 
here  that  there  were  two,  is  not  a  contradiction  but  a  simple  addition 
to  the  narratives  of  Mark  and  Luke  who  mention  only  one,  but  with¬ 
out  excluding  the  idea  of  plurality,  as  Matthew  does  when  he  says  one 
Scribe  {y.  19),  or  one  Jig -tree  (21,19).  Had  either  of  the  parallels,  in 
either  of  those  cases,  introduced  two  Scribes  or  two  trees,  there  would 
have  been  at  least  some  colour  for  the  charge  of  inconsistency.  But 
in  the  case  before  us,  Mark  and  Luke  employ  no  numeral  but  simply 
use  the  singular.  No  one  pretends  that  this  is  a  direct  contradiction  ; 
but  some  urge  the  gross  improbability  that  if  there  had  been  two,  the 
others  would  have  mentioned  only  one.  A  serious  error,  into  which 
those  sceptics  who  honestly  insist  upon  this  circumstance  have  fallen, 
is,  that  they  require  the  construction  put  upon  the  passage  to  be  per¬ 
fectly  natural  and  easy  ;  whereas  it  is  sufficient,  in  a  case  confessedly 
so  dubious,  and  presenting  but  a  choice  of  difficulties,  to  show  the 
possibility  of  reconciling  the  accounts  by  any  admissible  construction 
of  the  language.  The  antecedent  improbability  of  such  a  difference  in 
such  a  case  is  more  than  outweighed  by  the  improbability,  that  such  a 
contradiction  could  have  been  misunderstood  or  overlooked  by  the 
early  readers  and  assailants  of  the  Gospels.  That  it  was  not  fastened 
on  before  the  days  of  Julian  or  Porphyry,  shows  clearly  that  the  nar¬ 
ratives  were  not  originally  looked  upon  as  inconsistent,  whether  we 
are  able  or  unable  to  ascribe  specific  reasons  for  the  difference  in  ques- 


243 


MATTHEW  8,28. 

tion.^  That  such  reasons  are  not  wholly  wanting  may  be  shown  by  two 
considerations,  the  first  explaining  how  Mark  and  Luke  could  mention 
only  one,  the  other  why  Matthew  should  have  mentioned  both.  The 
first,  is  that  one  was  really  sufficient  for  the  common  purpose  of  all 
three  historians,  especially  if  one  demoniac,  as  we  may  readily  assume, 
although  of  course  we  cannot  prove,  was  more  ferocious  and  alarming 
than  the  other.*  But  if  one  was  sufficient,  why  should  Matthew  men¬ 
tion  both  ?  First;  because  though  one  might  be  sufficient,  two  could  do 
no  harm,  and  the  historian  is  not  restricted  to  the  statement  of  what  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  his  purpose.  Sccondl}^,  because,  though  Mat- 
;  thew’s  narrative,  in  this  and  many  other  instances,  is  less  detailed  than 

either  of  the  others,  it  is  one  of  his  distinctive  habits,  not  as  some  have 
^  strangely  said  to  see  things  double,  but  to  record  them  when  they 
’  actually  were  so.  (See  below,  on  9,  27.  21,  2.)  This,  though  malev- 
i  olently  represented  as  a  habitual  departure  from  exact  truth,  is  nothing 
more  than  a  particular  example  of  the  general  fact,  that  one  observer 
naturally  notes  particulars,  and  classes  of  particulars,  which  others 
overlook,  or  less  attentively  consider,  even  when  they  see  and  know 
;  them.  Other  examples  of  the  same  thing  are  Mark's  frequent  men- 
!'  tion  of  Christ’s  looks  and  gestures,  Luke’s  of  his  personal  devotions, 

r  John’s  of  certain  favourite  expressions,  such  as  the  reduplicated 

i  Amen  (Verily,  Verily),  precisely  parallel  to  which  is  Matthew’s  ac- 
curate  specification  of  the  number  two,  even  when  unnecessary  to  his 
I  purj)Ose  and  when  omitted,  although  not  excluded,  by  the  other  Gos- 
pels.  This  conformity  to  general  experience  and  the  laws  of  human 
i  nature  may  be  even  used  to  convert  this  seeming  discrepancy  into  an 
'  unstudied  but  convincing  proof  of  strict  veracity  in  all  the  witnesses, 
each  testifying  in  accordance  with  his  own  peculiar  mode  of  observa¬ 
tion,  and  not  that  of  others.  To  Mm  coming^  i.  e.  as  he  landed  (Luke 
8,  27),  not  merely  after  he  had  done  so,  which  would  admit  of  an  in¬ 
definite  interval,  whereas  the  landing  and  the  meeting  wnre  simulta- 
;  neous  or  immediately  successive.  Met  Mm,  or  came  to  meet  him,  possibly 

i  with  some  unfriendly  purpose.  Out  of  the  tombs,  a  Greek  word  orig- 

I  inally  meaning  memorials,  then  monuments,  then  tombs  or  sepulchres. 

I  As  these  were  usually  in  the  shape  of  houses,  or  of  cham.bers  hewn 
in  the  rock  (see  below  on  27,  GO),  they  would  easily  afibrd  a  haunt 
I  and  refuge  in  such  cases  as  the  one  here  mentioned.  Thus  far  the  case 
resembled  multitudes  of  others  which  our  Lord  had  previously  dealt 
[  with,  excepting  in  the  circumstance  suggested  by  the  words,  out  of 

*  “  Here  the  maxim  of  Le  Clerc  holds  true ;  Qui pltcranarr at,  pandora  com- 
‘plectitur  /  qui  pandora  memorat,  plura  non  negat.  Something  peculiar  in  the 
circumstances  or  character  of  one  of  the  persons,  rendered  him  more  prominent, 
and  led  the  two  former  Evangelists  to  speak  of  him  particularly.  But  their  lan¬ 
guage  does  not  exclude  a,noi\iQV. — A  familiar  example  will  illustrate  the  principle. 

I  in  the  year  1824,  Lafayette  visited  the  United  States,  and  was  everywhere  wd- 
.  corned  with  honours  and  pageants.  Historians  will  describe  these  as  a  noble  in- 

I  cident  in  his  life.  Other  writers  will  relate  the  same  visit  as  made,  and  the  same 

I  honours  as  enjoyed,  by  two  persons,  viz.  Lafayette  and  his  son.  Will  there  be 
[  any  contradiction  between  these  two  classes  of  writers  ?  Will  not  both  record 
the  truth  ?  ” — Bobinson's  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  note  on  §  57. 


II 


244 


MATTHEW  8,28.29. 


the  tombs.  But  here  we  begin  to  see  a  fearful  singularity  in  this  case, 
as  compared  with  all  the  other  demoniacal  possessions  mentioned  in 
the  Gospel  history,  and  accounting  in  some  measure  for  its  being  singled 
out  and  separately  stated.  Elsewhere  such  cases  are  exhibited  as 
aggravated  forms  of  disease,  preternaturally  caused,  but  under  the  con¬ 
trol  and  care  of  others.  Here,  on  the  contrary,  the  sufferers  were  out¬ 
casts  from  society,  not  only  dwelling  in  the  tombs,  but  wholly  un¬ 
controllable  (as  fully  stated  in  the  parallels),  exceeding  (or  exceedingly, 
extremely)  a  Greek  word  strictly  meaning  hard.,  i.  e.  difficult, 

but  specially  applied  in  classic  Greek  to  things  which  are  hard  to  bear, 
and  to  persons  who  are  hard  to  deal  with,  ill-disposed,  malignant, 
cruel  or  ferocious.  A  graphic  stroke  is  added  to  the  picture,  as  mi¬ 
nutely  painted  in  the  other  gospels,  by  the  circumstance  here  added, 
that  these  mad  men  w^re  the  terror  of  the  country,  so  that  no  one  was 
strong  {enough')  to  pass  by  (i.  e.  journey,  travel)  through  that  road  (or 
tcay).  The  original  construction  of  the  first  verb  and  particle  is 
like  that  in  v.  24;  the  verb  itself  is  that  employed  in  5, 13,  and  there 
explained. 

29.  And  behold,  they  cried  out,  saying.  What  have 
we  to  do  with  thee,  Jesus,  thou  Son  of  God  ?  art  thou 
come  hither  to  torment  us  before  the  time  ? 

Behold  is  here  almost  equivalent  to  ‘  strange  to  say,’  or  ‘  who  could 
have  believed  it  ?  ’  namely,  that  these  fierce  demoniacs,  who  had  long 
made  the  very  roads  impassable,  instead  of  flying  at  the  bold  intruder, 
orally  addressed  him  and  acknowledged  his  superiority.  But  at  the 
same  time,  they  implicitly  deny  his  right  to  interfere  with  them  at 
present,  by  the  question,  what  to  us  and  to  thee  ?  i.  e.  what  is  there 
common  to  us  or  connecting  us  ?  Thy  domain  or  sphere  is  wholly 
different  from  ours.  What  hast  thou  to  do  with  that  mysterious  world 
of  spirits,  to  which  we  belong,  and  which,  though  suffered  to  exert  a 
physical  and  moral  influence  on  man,  are  of  a  species  altogether  differ¬ 
ent,  and  therefore  not  amenable  to  thee  ?  The  plural  pronoun  (us) 
may  be  referred  either  to  the  evil  spirits,  as  a  body  or  a  race,  distinct 
from  that  of  man ;  or  still  more  probably,  because  more  simply,  to  the 
multitude  of  demons  who  possessed  them  (Mark  5,  9.  Luke  8,  30), 
or  perhaps  to  the  plurality,  not  only  of  the  demons  but  of  the  demo¬ 
niacs,  as  described  by  Matthew.  As  to  the  title.  Son  of  God.,  and  the 
sense  in  which  the  demons  here  apply  it,  see  above,  on  4,  3.  Didst 
thou  come  here  (or  hither)  is  the  proper  form  of  the  Greek  aorist. 
Before  the  time  should  have  stood  next,  as  it  does  in  the  original  and 
Wiclif ’s  version.  The  article  is  not  expressed  in  Greek,  which  there¬ 
fore  means  before-time,  i.  e.  prematurely  or  too  soon,  without  direct 
reference  to  any  set  time  in  particular.  To  torment  us,  the  active  voice 
of  the  verb  applied  in  v.  6  to  excruciating  pain  of  body.  (For  its  deri¬ 
vation,  see  above,  on  4,  24.)  It  has  here  the  wider  sense  of  agonizing 
punishment,  as  applicable  even  to  spirits  without  bodies.  This  interro¬ 
gation  is  a  vehicle  of  earnest  and  even  insolent  expostulation,  and  when 


MATTHEW  8,29.30.31. 


245 


taken  in  connection  with  the  one  before  it,  involves  an  indirect  denial 
of  our  Saviour’s  right  to  interfere  with  them,  which  seems  to  show  that 
even  when  they  called  him  Son  of  Gof  they  had  no  knowledge  of  his 
true  divinity. 

30.  And  there  was  a  good  way  otf  from  them  a  herd 
of  many  swine^  feeding. 

A  good  way  off,  in  Greek  a  single  word,  afar,  but  really  an  adjec¬ 
tive  agreeing  with  way  understood,  and  therefore  nearer  to  the  English 
form  than  it  might  seem  at  first  sight.  There  is  no  contradiction  be¬ 
tween  this  account  and  Mark’s  (5, 11),  because  there  and  nigh  (literally, 
at,  adjacent  to)  are  relative  expressions,  and  the  same  distance  which 
is  called  farm  a  room  would  be  considered  nothing  in  a  landscape  or  a 
journej''.  If  the  herd  was  beyond  reach,  it  was  far  off;  if  in  sight,  it 
was  near ;  if  either,  it  was  there.  All  these  expressions  might  be  nat¬ 
urally  used  by  the  same  witness  in  succession,  much  more  by  two  dis¬ 
tant  and  independent  witnesses.  Nor  would  such  a  variation,  w^hen 
susceptible  of  such  an  explanation,  be  considered  contradictory  in  any 
Anglo-Saxon  court  of  justice,  although  so  esteemed  in  many  a  German 
lecture-room.  According  to  our  rules  of  evidence,  it  might  even  serve 
to  strengthen  both  accounts,  as  really  though  not  ostensibly  harmoni¬ 
ous.  Many  swine,  i.  e.  about  two  thousand  (Mark  5, 13).  Feeding,  or 
loeing  fed,  as  the  form  may  be  either  middle  or  passive,  and  we  know 
from  V.  33  that  there  were  persons  tending  them.  As  swine’s  flesh 
was  forbidden  and  the  swine  an  unclean  beast  according  to  the  law  of 
Moses  (Lev.  11, 7.  8.  Deut.  14,  8)  ;  as  the  law  in  general,  and  especially 
its  ceremonial  distinctions,  were  punctually  observed  at  this  time ;  as 
the  use  of  swine’s  flesh  is  eschewed  by  all  Jews  at  the  present  day, 
and  there  is  no  trace  of  any  other  practice  in  the  interval :  it  is  highly 
improbable  that  these  swine  were  the  property  of  Jews,  unless  their  con¬ 
sciences  allowed  them  to  provide  forbidden  food  for  Gentiles,  and  it  is 
simpler  to  assume  that  the  Gentiles  provided  it  for  themselves,  which 
agrees  well  with  the  statement  of  Josephus,  that  Gadara,  the  chief 
town  of  this  district,  was  a  Greek  city  (see  above,  on  v.  28).  The 
question  would  be  one  of  little  moment  if  it  had  not  been  connected  by 
some  writers  with  their  vindication  of  our  Saviour’s  conduct  upon  this 
occasion  (see  below,  on  v.  34). 

31.  So  the  devils  besought  him,  saying,  If  thou  cast 
us  out,  suffer  us  to  go  away  into  the  herd  of  swine. 

So,  the  usual  connective  (Se)  rendered  and  in  v.  30.  Devils,  i.  e. , 
demons,  as  explained  above  (on  4,  24).  How  they  communicated 
with  our  Lord  is  not  revealed,  but  can  create  no  more  difficulty 
than  the  similar  communication  between  him  and  Satan  as  the 
tempter  (see  above,  on  4,  3).  As  they  were  not  yet  driven  out  when 
this  request  was  made,  they  may  still  have  made  use  of  the  men’s  vo- 


24G 


MATTHEW  8,31.32. 

cal  organs,  tbougli  they  spoke  no  longer  in  their  name  but  in  their  own. 
jMatthew  records  the  very  words,  and  not  the  substance  only,  of  this 
strange  request.  ‘Mark  also  makes  it  a  direct  address  (5, 12),  while 
Luke  gives  it  indirectly  (8,  32),  like  the  classical  historians  in  reporting 
very  short  discourses.  Mark’s  expression,  send  us^  seems  a  peremptory 
demand,  but  involves  a  recognition  of  his  power  to  dispose  of  them, 
which  Matthew  and  Luke  express  by  using  the  verb  permit^  and  Mat¬ 
thew  by  recording  the  conditional  expression,  if  thou  cast  us  out.  To 
go  away  {from  the  men)  into  the  sioine,  and  take  possession  of  their 
bodies  just  as  they  had  entered  into  the  demoniacs  (Luke  8,  30). 
Those  who  laugh  at  this  request  as  mere  absurdity,  and  therefore 
never  uttered,  only  show  their  incapacity  to  estimate  the  craft  and 
cunning  which  suggested  it.  Having  begged  to  be  left  undisturbed 
and  been  refused,  they  now  apparently  relinquish  their  pretensions 
to  the  human  victims,  and  content  themselves  with  leave  to  take 
possession  of  inferior  natures.  But  this  mock  humility  is  only  a 
disguise  for  their  malignant  wish  to  bring  reproach  and  danger 
on  their  conqueror  and  judge.  If  it  be  asked,  in  what  sense,  and 
to  what  extent,  could  evil  spirits  take  possession  of  a  herd  of 
swine,  the  answer  is,  precisely  so  and  so  far  as  the  nature  of  the 
swine  permitted.  As  that  nature  was  not  rational  or  moral,  no  intel¬ 
lectual  or  spiritual  influence  could  be  exerted  ;  but  the  body  with  its 
organs  and  sensations,  the  animal  soul  with  its  desires  and  appetites, 
could  just  as  easily  be  wrought  upon  by  demons  as  the  corresponding 
parts  of  the  human  constitution.  The  difficulty  lies  in  admitting  de¬ 
moniacal  influence  at  all,  and  not  in  extending  it  to  lower  animals,  so 
far  as  they  have  any  thing  in  common  with  the  higher. 


32.  And  he  said  unto  them„  Go.  And  when  they 
v/ere  come  out,  they  went  into  the  herd  of  swine  :  and 
behold,  the  whole  herd  of  swine  ran  violently  down  a  steep 
place  into  the  sea,  and  perished  in  the  waters. 

It  is  not  improbable  that  they  expected  this  request,  like  the  first, 
to  be  refused,  as  they  could  scarcely  hope  to  conceal  from  Christ  the 
motive,  whether  mockery  or  malice,  which  had  prompted  it.  But  in 
the  exercise  of  that  divine  discretion  which  so  often  brought  good  out 
of  evil,  making  the  wrath  of  m.en  (and  devils)  to  praise  him,  and  re¬ 
straining  the  remainder  which  would  not  have  that  effect  (Ps.  76, 10), 
he  immediately  permitted  them,  and  no  doubt  actively  coerced  them  into 
doing  what  they  had  themselves  proposed,  tru,  a  happy  improvement 
on  the  older  Protestant  versions,  which  as  usual  have,  go  your  ways  ! 
(See  above,  on  vs.  4. 13.)  And  going  out  (from  the  demoniacs,  or  har¬ 
ing  gone  out).^  they  icent  aioay,  entered  into  the  herd  of  swine.  The  real¬ 
ity  of  this  transition  was  evinced  by  a  violent  and  sudden  movement 
of  the  swine  in  the  most  dangerous  direction,  from  which  instinct,  uncon¬ 
trolled,  would  have  preserved  them.  The  whole  herd  rushed  down  the 
'precipice  (or  overhanging  bank,  as  the  Greek  word  means  according  to 


247 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  8,  32.  33.  34. 

its  etymology)  into  the  sea  (or  lahe)^  between  which  and  the  hills  (or 
highlands)  they  were  feeding.  Of  all  neological  absurdities  the  silliest 
is  the  notion  that  this  verse  is  a  poetical  description  of  madmen  run¬ 
ning  through  a  herd  of  swine  and  dtiving  them  into  the  water !  To 
destroy  one  thus  would  have  been  hard  enough ;  but  the  evangelist 
describes  a  simultaneous  movement  of  about  two  thousand,  the  num¬ 
ber  being  introduced  just  here  by  Mark  (5, 13),  to  shut  out  all  perver¬ 
sion  or  unfounded  explanation  of  the  fact  recorded.  Perished^  literally, 
died^  of  course  by  drowning  or  strangulation,  as  expressly  mentioned 
in  the  parallels.  It  is  a  circumstance  of  some  importance  that  they  all 
without  exception  perished,  an  additional  proof  of  supernatural  agency 
in  their  destruction. 

33.  And  they  that  kept  them,  fled,  and  went  their 
ways  into  the  city,  and  told  every  thing  ;  and  what  was  be¬ 
fallen  to  the  possessed  of  the  devils. 

And  those  feeding  them  fled  ^  astonished  and  affrighted  at  the  sud¬ 
den  loss  of  their  whole  charge,  and  reported^  carried  back  word  to  the 
place  from  which  they  came,  i.  e.  into  the  toion  (or  city)  where  the 
owners  of  the  swine  resided  (compare  Luke  15,  15).  There  is  some¬ 
thing  very  significant  in  the  original  form  of  the  last  clause,  all  (things) 
and  the  (things  ov  affair)  of  the  possessed  (or  demonized).  They  told 
the  whole  story,  and  began  no  doubt  with  the  destruction  of  the 
swine,  but  did  not  fail  to  add  the  extraordinary  change  which  they  had 
witnessed  in  the  famous  madmen  or  demoniacs. 

34.  And,  behold,  the  whole  city  came  out  to  meet  Je¬ 
sus  :  and  when  they  saw  him,  they  besought  (him)  that 
he  would  depart  out  of  their  coasts. 

And  (/cat)  hehold.^  introducing  the  last  wonder  to  be  told'  in  this 
connection.  The  whole  city^  a  natural  hyperbole  for  its  inhabitants, 
the  same  employed  above  in  3,  5.  To  meet  Jesus.^  on  his  way  to  the 
city,  and  prevent  his  entrance.  Depart  (pass,  from  one  place  to 
another)  out  of  their  coasts.^  in  the  old  English  sense  of  borders,  bounds, 
or  confines,  often  put  for  all  that  is  contained  within  them.  (See  above, 
on  2,  IG.)  This  is  so  unlike  the  usual  effect  of  our  Lord’s  miracles  and 
teachings  that  it  seems  to  call  for  explanation,  which  may  be  derived 
from  two  considerations.  The  first  is,  that  the  miracle,  although  a  sig¬ 
nal  miracle  of  mercy  to  the  demoniacs  themselves,  was  one  of  injury  and 
loss  to  the  owners  of  the  swine  ;  so  that  the  whole  mass  of  Eic  poi)u- 
lation  (Luke  8,  37)  was  not  only  filled  with  awe,  but  apprehensive  of 
some  more  extensive  damage.  The  other  is  that  Gadara  was  a  Gen¬ 
tile  city  (see  above  on  v.  28),  and  the  great  mass  of  the  Gadarenes 
throughout  the  district  either  wholly  heathen  or  extensively  mixed 
with  them.  Now,  although  the  influence  exercised  by  Christ  was  not 
necessarily  confined  to  Jews,  yet  as  his  mission  was  to  them  (see  be- 


248 


MATTHEW  8,34. 

low,  on  15, 24),  and  they  alone  could  fully  understand  his  claims  as  the 
Messiah,  it  is  not  surprising  that  a  Gentile  population  should  have  been 
less  favourably  impressed  by  this  one  miracle,  the  benefits  of  which  ex¬ 
tended  only  to  two  individuals,  or  at  most  to  the  circle  of  their  friends, 
whereas  the  incidental  evils,  either  actual  or  apprehended,  were  more 
general.  We  learn  from  the  parallel  accounts  in  Mark  and  Luke,  that 
the  miracle  in  question,  while  it  led  directly  to  our  Lord’s  exclusion 
from  this  province,  incidentally  supplied  his  place  .by  a  zealous  and  de¬ 
voted  substitute,  who  would  also  htiYe  it  in  his  power  to  counteract,  if 
necessary,  any  false  impressions  with  respect  to  the  destruction  of  the 
swine.  Our  Saviour’s  agency  in  this  destruction  is  not  to  be  vindi¬ 
cated  on  the  ground  that  Jews  had  no  right  to  keep  swine  and  were 
therefore  justly  punished  by  the  loss  of  them.  Even  admitting  that 
these  men  were  Jews,  their  violation  of  the  law  would  hardly  have 
been  punished  so  circuitously  and  without  the  slightest  intimation  of 
their  crime.  The  act  was  one  of  sovereign  authorit}^,  attested  by  the 
miracle  itself,  and  so  far  as  we  can  learn,  not  disputed  even  by  the  per¬ 
sons  injured,  however  much  they  might  lament  their  loss  and  wish  to 
avoid  its  repetition.  There  is  no  more  need  of  any  special  vindication 
here  than  in  the  case  of  far  more  serious  inflictions  of  the  same  kind  by 
disease  or  accident.  The  personal  presence  of  the  Saviour  could  not 
detract  from  his  divine  right  to  dispose  of  his  own  creatures  for  his  own 
ends,  even  if  these  ends  were  utterly  unknown  to  us,  much  less  when 
they  are  partially  perceptible.  For.  however  sciolists  and  sceptics  may 
deride  this  occurrence  as  absurd  and  unworthy  of  the  Saviour,  it  an¬ 
swered  an  important  purpose,  that  of  showing  his  dominion  over  every 
class  of  objects,  and  of  proving  the  reality  of  personal  possessions,  by 
exhibiting  a  case,  in  which  the  demons,  abandoning  the  human  subjects 
'whom  they  had  so  long  tormented,  and  leaving  them  entirely  free  from 
all  unnatural  excitement,  instantaneously  betrayed  their  presence  and 
their  power  in  a  multitude  of  lower  animals,  impelling  them,  against 
their  own  instinctive  dispositions,  to  a  sudden  simultaneous  movement 
ending  in  their  own  destruction.  Admitting  the  external  facts  to  be 
as  Matthew  here  describes  them,  they  are  wholly  unaccountable  except 
upon  the  supposition  of  a  real  dispossession  such  as  he  affirms,  and  the 
extraordinary  novelty  of  which,  without  discrediting  his  narrative,  ex¬ 
plains  his  having  given  a  conspicuous  place  in  it  to  this  signal  proof  of 
superhuman  power. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

The  exemplification  of  Christ’s  miracles,  begun  in  the  preceding  chap¬ 
ter,  is  continued  through  the  one  before  us,  but  with  more  admixture 
of  other  matter  associated  with  these  in  the  writer’s  memory.  After 
stating  his  return  from  the  voyage  mentioned  in  the  previous  context 


MATTPIEW  9,1.2. 


249 


(1),  the  evangelist  relates  the  healing  of  another  paralytic  at  Caper¬ 
naum,  with  the  conversation  which  grew  out  of  it  (2-8)  ;  his  own  vo¬ 
cation  as  a  follower  of  Christ,  and  a  conversation  which  occurred  in  his 
own  house,  with  respect  to  our  Lord’s  treatmenf  of  the  publicans  and 
sinners  (9-13)  ;  another  conversation  with  John’s  disciples  in  relation  ' 
to  fasting  (14-17)  ;  the  resuscitation  of  a  ruler’s  daughter,  and  the  heal¬ 
ing  of  a  diseased  woman  on  the  w^ay  (18-26)  ;  the  healing  of  two  blind 
men  (27-31),  and  of  a  dumb  demoniac  (32-34)  ;  after  which  we  have 
another  general  description  of  our  Lord’s  itinerant  labours  and  his 
miracles  in  general,  wdth  a  strong  expression  of  his  pity  for  the  people 
and  desire  to  relieve  them  (35-38).  This  narrative,  taken  by  itself, 
would  naturally  seem  to  be  chronologically  arranged,  and  in  parts  is 
expressly  said  to  be  so ;  but  by  comparison  with  the  other  Gospels, 
we  find  that  in  several  instances  this  order  is  departed  from.  It  might 
be  sufficient,  here  as  in  the  previous  chapter,  to  account  for  this  by 
simply  referring  it  to  IMatthew’s  purpose,  which  required  things  of  the 
same  kind  to  be  brought  together,  whether  immediately  successive  or  not. 
We  have  it  happily,  however,  in  our  power  to  go  further  and  explain, 
in  part  at  least,  why  the  existing  order  v^as  adopted.  This  we  shall 
attempt  below  in  the  detailed  interpretation. 

1.  And  he  entered  into  a  ship,  and  passed  over,  and 
came  into  his  own  city. 

The  division  of  the  chapters  here  is  very  unfortunate,  not  only  sep¬ 
arating  what  belongs  together,  but  creating  an  appearance  of  chrono¬ 
logical  inaccuracy  which  is  instantly  removed  by  putting  this  verse  in 
its  proper  place  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  narrative,  completing  the 
account  of  our  Lord’s  visit  to  the  east  side  of  the  lake  and  his  return  to 
Galilee.  And  stepping  into^  or  embarking  on,  the  same  verb  that  is 
used  above  in  8, 23,  and  there  explained.  A  ship,  as  in  that  case, 
should  be  the  ship  (or  loat),  here  referring  to  the  one  in  which  he  came, 
and  which  was  no  doubt  waiting  for  him.  Passed  over,  crossed,  a 
Greek  verb  commonly  applied  to  the  passage  of  seas  or  rivers,  an  idea 
here  expressed  in  the  Vulgate  version  {transfretavif).  His  own  city, 
not  that  of  his  birth  (Bethlehem),  nor  that  of  his  early  long-continued 
residence  (Nazareth),  but  that  which  he  had  chosen  as  the  centre  of 
his  operations  (Capernaum),  and  the  circumstances  of  his  settlement  in 
which  have  been  already  mentioned.  (See  above,  on  4, 13.)  Here  the 
narrative  beginning  at  8, 18,  closes,  and  the  next  verse  opens  one  en¬ 
tirely  different. 

2.  And,  behold,  they  brought  to  him  a  man  sick  of 
the  palsy,  lying  on  a  bed  :  and  J esus  seeing  their  faith 
said  unto  the  siek  of  the  palsy  ;  Son,  be  of  good  cheer  ; 
thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee. 

As  already  hinted  in  the  introduction  to  the  chapter,  we  are  able 


I 


250 


MATTHEW  9,2. 

to  assign  a  more  specific  reason  than  in  many  other  cases  for  the 
introduction  of  this  miracle  just  here.  The  next  in  chronological  order, 
as  appears  from  a  comparison  of  the  three  accounts,  was  the  two¬ 
fold  or  complicated  miracle  described  below  in  vs.  18-26.  But  with 
that  transaction  Matthew  had  peculiar  personal  associations,  from  the 
fact,  that  when  the  ruler  sought  our  Lord  to  heal  his  daughter  (see 
below,  on  v.  18),  he  found  him  eating  in  the  house  of  Matthew  himself 
(see  below,  on  v.  10),  and  engaged  in  a  most  interesting  conversation, 
which  was  no  doubt  deeply  graven  on  the  memory  of  his  entertainer. 
What  could  be  more  natural,  therefore,  than  that  the  latter,  before 
giving  us  the  miracle,  should  record  the  conversation  that  preceded  it, 
and  that  before  doing  this,  he  should  record  the  fact  of  his  own  voca¬ 
tion,  though  it  may  have  taken  place  much  sooner.  But  this  vocation, 
as  we  learn  from  all  three  gospels  (see  below,  on  v.  9),  was  immedi¬ 
ately  preceded  by  the  healing  of  the  paralytic,  which  accounts  for  his 
beginning  with  that  miracle,  though  in  itself  sufficiently  remarkable 
to  find  some  place  in  any  list  or  exemplification  of  our  Lord’s  miracu¬ 
lous  performances.  This  connection  of  the  topics  in  the  narrative 
before  us  is  of  some  importance,  as  a  proof  that  the  evangelist,  even 
when  he  seems  to  interrupt  the  chronological  arrangement,  does  not  do 
it  at  random,  but  for  reasons  which  imply  a  definite  purpose  and  a 
systematic  method,  and  which,  being  sometimes,  as  in  this  case,  ascer¬ 
tainable,  may  reasonably  be  assumed,  even  where  we  cannot  trace  it  so 
distinctly.  The  separation  of  the  first  verse  from  its  proper  context 
(see  above,  on  v.  1)  necessarily  produces  the  impression  on  the  reader 
who  is  naturally  influenced  by  these  divisions,  though  entirely  conven¬ 
tional  and  often  wrong,  that  the  verse  in  question  gives  the  date  of  the 
occurrences  that  follow,  or,  in  other  words,  that  the  healing  of  the 
paralytic  took  place  on  our  Lord’s  return  from  the  excursion,  during 
which  he  stilled  the  storm  and  dispossessed  the  demoniacs  of  Gadara, 
as  described  in  vs.  18-34  of  the  preceding  chapter.  But  the  first  of 
these  miracles  is  placed  much  earlier  both  by  Mark  (2,  1)  and  Luke 
(5, 17),  namely,  after  the  healing  of  the  leper,  which  Matthew  himself 
expressly  represents  as  immediately  following  the  descent  from  the 
mountain  after  the  delivery  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (see  above, 
on  8,  1).  But  if  9,  1  belongs  to  the  preceding  context,  there  is  no 
mark  of  time  whatever  in  respect  to  the  ensuing  miracle,  the  first 
words  of  the  verse  before  us  simply  meaning,  that  they  {once')  hrought 
to  him  a  'paralytic.  (See  above,  on  8,  5,  where  there  is  a  similar  tran¬ 
sition.)  This  may  seem  to  be  forbidden  by  the  words  and  lo^  appa¬ 
rently  connecting  what  follows  in  the  closest  manner  with  what  goes 
before.  But  this  impression  is  occasioned  partly  by  the  false  division 
of  the  chapters,  almost  forcing  these  two  verses  into  intimate  connec¬ 
tion,  and  partly  by  a  disregard  of  Matthew’s  settled  usage,  which  ex¬ 
hibits  many  instances  of  similar  appearance,  where  we  know  that  the 
two  things  w^ere  not  immediately  successive,  and  where  all  suspicion 
of  mistake  or  variant  tradition  is  precluded  by  the  fact  that  there  is  no 
chronological  specification,  but  a  mere  presumption  founded  upon  jux¬ 
taposition.  Throwing  the  first  verse  back  into  the  former  chapter 


251 


MATTHEW  9,2. 

where  it  properly  belongs,  and  regarding  that  before  us  as  the  opening 
of  a  new  context,  and  is  simply  a  historical  connective  resuming  and 
continuing  the  narrative,  according  to  the  Hebrew  idiom  which  em¬ 
ploys  it  even  at  the  beginning  of  a  book,  although  the  English  version 
usually  softens  and  to  now  or  then.^  Behold,  merely  indicating  some¬ 
thing  new  and  unexpected,  is  as  much  in  place  at  the  beginning  as  in 
any  other  portion  of  the  narrative,  and  here  amounts  to  saying,  ‘  another 
proof  of  his  extraordinary  power  was  afforded  on  a  difierent  occasion 
when  they  brought,’  &c.  It  would  seem,  from  an  expression  used  by 
Luke  (5,  17),  that  other  miracles  of  healing  were  performed  at  this 
time,  but  that  one  is  recorded  in  detail,  on  account  of  the  remarkable 
circumstances  which  attended  it,  and  of  the  no  less  remarkable  dis¬ 
course  to  which  it  gave  occasion.  Of  the  three  accounts,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  demoniacs  at  Gadara  (see  above,  on  8,  28),  the  most  concise  is 
Matthew’s,  one  of  many  proofs  that  the  ancient  and  still  current  notion 
as  to  Mark’s  abridging  Matthew  is  entirely  groundless.  As  in  other 
cases  of  the  same  sort,  we  must  carefully  avoid  confounding  the  three 
narratives  and  destroying  the  distinctive  character  of  either,  while 
endeavouring  to  make  them  interpret  and  elucidate  each  other.  They 
brought  to  him^  an  indefinite  expression,  meaning  certain  persons,  whom 
it  was  unnecessary  further  to  describe,  but  whom  we  know  from  other 
sources  to  have  been  men  (Luke  5,  18)  and  four  in  number  (Mark  2, 
3).  The  next  six  words  represent  a  single  Greek  one,  which  might 
now  be  rendered  no  less  briefly  in  English  by  the  use  of  the  word 
'paralytic  (see  above,  on  8,  6).  Lying.^  literally,  throicn.^  or  prostrate 
(as  in  8,  6.  14).  A  JetZ,  or  couch,  any  thing  on  which  one  lies  for  rest. 
According  to  oriental  usage,  it  was  probably  no  solid  framework  like 
our  bedsteads,  but  a  simple  pallet,  rug,  or  blanket.  Seeing.,  not 
merely  in  the  exercise  of  his  divine  omniscience,  but  perceiving  by 
external  signs,  fully  described  in  both  the  other  gospels  (Mark  2,  4. 
Luke  5,  18).  Their  faith^  not  merely  that  of  the  sufferer,  though  this 
may  be  included,  which  distinguishes  this  case  from  that  of  the  centu¬ 
rion  (see  above,  on  8,  13).  The  faith  directly  meant  in  both  cases  is 
belief  in  Christ’s  ability  and  willingness  to  work  the  cure  (see  below, 
on  V.  28).  The  commendation  of  their  faith  is  not  addressed  to  all, 
but  to  the  sufferer  alone,  and  in  a  form  at  once  affecting  and  surprising. 
Be  of  good  cheer.,  i.  e.  cheer  up,  take  courage  (Rhemish  Bible,  hare  a 
good  heart).  The  same  use  of  the  same  Greek  word  (Sapcret)  occurs 
repeatedly  in  Homer,  and  sometimes  in  connection  with  the  same 
endearing  epithet.  Son.,  or  rather  child.,  the  Greek  word  being  neuter, 
and  in  usage  common  to  both  sexes,  even  when  the  reference  is  to  one, 
as  here,  and  in  21,  28.  Luke  2,  48.  15,  31.  The  same  affectionate 
address  is  used  by  Christ  to  his  disciples  in  the  plural  number  (10,  24. 

*  Leviticus  and  Numbers  are  the  only  books  in  which  the  initial  particle  is 
rendered  awd/  Genesis,  Deuteronomy,  First  Chronicles,  and  Nehemiah  the 
only  historical  books,  properly  so  called,  which  do  not  open  with  it  in  Hebrew. 
It  is  taken  for  granted,  here  and  in  the  text  above,  that  the  rav  in  all  these  cases 
is  the  copulative  {and),  and  not  an  augment,  like  the  e  and  -q  in  Greek,  as  some 

ingenious  modern  has  suggested. 


252 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  9,  2.  3. 

John  13,  33),  and  a  synonymous  form  elsewhere  (John  21,  5).  It  is 
here  intended  to  express,  not  only  kindness  and  compassion,  but  a 
new  spiritual  kindred  or  relation,  which  had  just  been  formed  between 
the  speaker  and  the  man  whom  he  addressed.  Be  forgiven^  like  the 
Greek  verb,  is  ambiguous,  and  may  be  either  a  command  or  an  affir¬ 
mation.  It  is  now  held  by  the  highest  philological  authorities  that  the 
original  word  (dcjjecovTai}  is  an  Attic,  or  more  probably  a  Doric  form 
of  the  perfect  passive  signifying  something  that  is  done  already.  Thy 
sins  have  (already)  heen  remitted^  the  verb  corresponding  to  the  noun 
(^remission')  in  26,  28  below.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing,  as  some 
do,  that  this  man’s  palsy  was  in  some  peculiar  or  unusual  sense  the 
fruit  of  sinful  indulgence ;  much  less  that  our  Lord  conformed  his 
language  to  the  common  Jewish  notion,  that  all  suffering  was  directly 
caused  by  some  specific  sin,  a  notion  which  he  pointedly  condemns  in 
John  9,  3.  Luke  13,  2-5.  Bodily  and  spiritual  healing  was  more  fre¬ 
quently  coincident  than  we  are  apt  to  think,  the  one  being  really  a 
pledge  and  symbol  of  the  other.  Saving  faith  and  healing  faith,  to  use 
an  analogous  expression,  were  alike  the  gift  of  God,  and  often,  if  not 
commonly,  bestowed  together,  as  in  this  case,  where  the  singularity  is 
not  the  coincidence  of  healing  and  forgiveness,  but  the  prominence 
given  to  the  latter  b}^  the  Saviour,  who  instead  of  saying,  ‘  be  thou 
whole  ’  (compare  8,  3.)  or  ‘  thy  disease  is  healed,’  surprised  all  who 
heard  him  by  the  declaration  that  his  sins  were  pardoned.  This  para¬ 
doxical  expression  was  no  doubt  designed  to  turn  attention  from  the 
lower  to  the  higher  cure  or  miracle,  and  also  to  assert  his  own  prerog¬ 
ative  of  pardon,  in  the  very  face  of  those  whom  he  knew  to  be  his 
enemies. 

3.  And,  behold,  certain  of  the  Scribes  said  within 
themselves,  This  (man)  blasphemeth. 

We  here  see  for  whom  this  unexpected  declaration  was  in¬ 
tended,  not  for  his  friends  and  disciples,  but  for  others  whom  he 
knew  to  be  present  as  spies  and  censors  of  his  conduct.  Some  of  the 
Scribes^  i.  e.  of  the  large  class  or  profession  mentioned  in  2,  4.  5,  20. 
7,  29.  8,  19.  These  expounders  of  the  law,  and  spiritual  leaders  of  the 
people,  had  already  been  invidiously  compared  with  Jesus  by  the 
crowds  who  heard  him,  and  were  therefore  predisposed  to  regard  him 
as  a  rival.  Those  who  assembled  now  on  his  return  to  Capernaum 
were  not  merely  residents  of  that  place,  but  collected,  as  Luke  strongly 
phrases  it  (5,  17),  from  every  village  of  Galilee  and  Judea,  as  well  as 
from  Jerusalem.  However  hyperbolical  these  terms  may  be,  the 
essential  fact  is  still  that  these  unfriendly  Scribes  came  from  various 
quarters,  thereby  showing  the  importance  which  began  to  be  attached 
to  Christ’s  proceedings,  especially  by  those  who  were  at  once  the 
jurists  and  the  theologians,  the  lawyers  and  the  clergy,  of  the  Jewish 
nation.  Within  themselves  might  also  mean  among  themselves,  and 
here  denote  discussion,  or  an  interchange  of  views  (as  in  16,  7.  21,  25, 
below) ;  but  this  idea  is  excluded  by  the  words  in  Mark  (2,  6),  in 


MATTHEW  9,  3.  4.  5. 


253 


their  hearts^  so  that  what  is  here  described  is  not  reciprocal  communi¬ 
cation,  but  the  secret  working  of  their  several  minds,  unconscious  of 
the  eye  that  was  upon  them.  This  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  con¬ 
temptuous,  being  often  in  classic  Greek  equivalent  to  this  fellow^  and 
occasionally  so  translated  in  our  Bible.  (See  below,  on  12,  24.  26,  61. 
71.)  To  Maspheme^  in  classic  Greek,  is  commonly  applied  to  evil 
speaking  among  men,  such  as  slander  or  vituperation,  but  sometimes 
to  irreverent  or  impious  language  to  or  of  the  gods,  which  last  (in  ap¬ 
plication  to  the  true  God)  is  its  exclusive  sense  in  Hellenistic  usage. 
The  ground  of  this  charge,  here  implied,  is  expressed  in  both  the 
parallels  (Mark  2,  7.  Luke  5,  21)  namely,  that  the  power  to  forgive 
belongs  to  God  alone.  The  principle  involved  in  this  interrogation  is 
a  sound  one,  and  appears  to  have  been  a  sort  of  axiom  with  these 
learned  Jewish  Scribes,  who  were  also  right  in  understanding  Christ 
as  acting  by  his  own  authority,  and  thereby  claiming  divine  honours 
for  himself.  A  mere  declaratory  absolution  they  could  utter  too,  and 
no  doubt  often  did  so,  but  the  very  manner  of  our  Lord  must  have 
evinced  that  in  forgiving,  as  in  teaching,  he  spoke  with  authority,  and 
not  as  the  Scribes.  (See  above,  on  7,  29.) 

4.  And  Jesus  knowing  tlieir  tkoiiglits  said,  Where¬ 
fore  think  ye  evil  in  your  hearts  ? 

These  cavils  and  repinings,  though  not  audible,  were  visible  to  him 
who  had  occasioned  them,  and  now  detected  them  by  his  omniscience 
without  waiting  till  they  were  betrayed  by  word  or  action.  Knowing^ 
an  idea  borrowed  from  the  parallels  (Mark  2,  8.  Luke  5,  22),  where  as 
the  word  here  used  means  seeing^  and  is  so  translated  in  v.  2,  as  well 
as  in  all  the  older  versions  of  the  one  before  us.  Why,  literally,  for 
what,  i.  e.  for  what  cause  or  reason.  ThmTc,  is  stronger  in  Greek, 
meaning  ponder  or  revolve,  and  according  to  the  parallels  to  reason, 
reckon,  calculate,  a  term  implying  coolness  and  deliberate  forethought, 
not  a  sudden  violent  excitement.  Evil  is  in  Greek  a  plural  adjective, 
evil  {things),  the  same  that  is  repeatedly  employed  above  to  denote 
both  physical  and  moral  evil.  (Compare  6,  23.  7,  17,  with  5,  37.  6, 
13.  7,  11.)  Here  it  can  only  have  the  latter  sense.  In  your  hearts, 
not  merely  in  your  minds,  but  in  your  inner  parts,  or  secretly.  The 
question  has  the  force  of  a  severe  rebuke,  ‘  what  right  have  you  to 
entertain  such  thoughts  ?  ’ 

5.  For  whether  is  easier,  to  say,  (Thy)  sins  be  for¬ 
given  thee  ;  or  to  say,  Arise,  and  walk  ? 

This  is  one  of  the  most  striking  instances  on  record  of  our  Lord’s 
consummate  wisdom  in  the  use  of  what  appears  to  be  a  strange  and 
paradoxical  method  of  reasoning  or  instruction.  As  instead  of  pro¬ 
nouncing  the  man  healed  he  unexpectedly  pronounced  him  pardoned, 
so,  instead  of  meeting  their  objections  by  a  formal  alfirmation  of  his 


254 


MATTHEW  9,  5.  6.  7. 


own  prerogative,  he  does  so  by  a  subtle  but  convincing  argument,  dis¬ 
closing  at  the  same  time  why  he  had  so  spoken.  They  denied  his 
power  to  forgive  sins,  and  could  not  be  convinced  of  it  by  any  sensible 
demonstration.  But  they  might  equally  dispute  his  power  to  heal, 
unless  attested  by  a  visible  eifect.  If  then  his  commanding  the  para¬ 
lytic  to  arise  and  walk  should  be  followed  by  his  doing  so,  what  pre¬ 
text  could  they  have  for  doubting  his  assertion  that  the  same  man’s 
sins  were  pardoned?  For  assigns  the  reason  of  his  calling  their 
thoughts  evil.  IFAicA  (in  old  whether)  is  easier?  You  may 

think  it  easy  enough  to  pronounce  his  sins  forgiven,  whether  they  be 
so  or  not ;  but  it  is  equally  easy  to  pronounce  him  healed,  or  to 
demand  of  him  the  actions  of  a  sound  man,  and  if  this  should  prove 
effectual,  you  must  acknowledge  that  the  other  is  so  too,  although  the 
pardon  of  sin  cannot  be  made  palpable  to  sense  like  the  cure  of  a  paral¬ 
ysis. 


6.  But  that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  Man  hath 
power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins,  (then  saith  he  to  the  sick 
of  the  palsy,)  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  unto  thine 
house. 

‘  That  you  may  know  by  what  authority  I  tell  this  man  that  his 
sins  have  been  forgiven,  I  will  show  you  what  authority  I  have  over 
his  disease,  that  the  possession  of  the  one  may  demonstrate  the  existence 
of  the  other,  for  both  belong  to  me  as  the  Messiah.’  Having  stated 
his  argument,  he  now  applies  it,  by  exhibiting  the  very  proof  of  his 
authority  to  pardon  sin  which  he  had  shown  to  be  conclusive.  To  for¬ 
give  sin  and  to  heal  disease  are  superhuman  powers,  to  claim  which  is 
equally  easy,  and  to  exercise  them  equally  diflScult.  If  I  pronounce 
this  man  forgiven,  you  may  deny  it,  but  you  cannot  bring  my  declara¬ 
tion  to  the  test  of  observation,  since  forgiveness  is  a  change  not  cogniz¬ 
able  by  the  senses.  But  if  I  assert  the  other  power,  you  can  instantly 
detect  the  falsehood  of  my  claim,  by  showing  that  the  paralysis  con¬ 
tinues.  If,  on  the  contrary,  it  disappears  at  my  command,  the  proof 
thus  furnished  of  the  truth  of  one  claim  may  convince  5^11  that  the 
other  is  no  less  well  founded.  Thus  far  he  had  addressed  the  Scribes; 
then  turning  to  the  palsied  man.  Arising  (probably  lying  doicn 
and  raised  up),  tahe  uj)  thy  couch  and  go  aicay  into  thy  house. 


7.  And  he  arose,  and  departed  to  his  house. 

Familiar  as  we  are  with  this  astounding  scene,  it  is  not  easy  to 
imagine  the  solicitous  suspense  with  which  both  the  enemies  and  friends 
of  Jesus  must  have  awaited  the  result.  Had  the  paralytic  failed  to 
obey  the  summons,  the  pretensions  of  the  new  religious  teacher  were 
refuted  by  the  test  of  his  own  choosing. 


255 


MATTHEW  9,8.9. 

8.  But  when  the  multitudes  saw  (it),  they  marvelled, 
and  glorified  God,  which  had  given  such  power  unto 
men. 

The  effect  upon  the  crowds  was  that  they  wondered^  or  according  to 
another  reading,  found  in  the  Vatican  and  Beza  codices,  as  well  as  in 
the  Vulgate  and  Peshito  versions,  were  afraid^  i.  e.  filled  with  a 
religious  awe  at  such  an  exhibition  of  divine  power  over  the  worst 
forms  of  disease.  Glorified  God.  or  made  him  glorious  by  praising 
him  (see  above,  on  5,  16.  6,  2).  Which  had  given.^  literally,  the  {one) 
giving  (or  having  given),  such,  not  merely  as  to  quality  or  kind,  but  so 
great,  so  much,  which  is  the  usage  of  the  word  in  Greek.  Power,  including 
the  ideas  of  physical  capacity  and  moral  right.  (See  above,  on  7,  29. 
8,  9.)  This  must  here  be  understood  as  applying,  not  only  to  the 
miracle  of  healing,  but  to  the  forgiveness  which  it  proved  to  have 
been  also  granted.  Unto  men,  collectively  or  as  a  race,  of  which  they 
looked  on  Jesus  as  the  representative.  (See  above,  on  8,  20.)  This 
expression  seems  to  show  that  they  had  no  conception  of  his  divine 
nature.  There  is  another  explanation  of  the  plural  {men)  as  referring 
to  our  Lord  and  his  disciples,  the  whole  company  of  which  he  was  the 
leader. 

♦ 

9.  And  as  Jesus  passed  forth  from  thence,  he  saw  a 
man  named  Matthew,  sitting  at  the  receipt  of  custom  : 
and  he  saith  unto  him,  Follow  me.  And  he  arose,  and 
followed  him. 

As  the  first  four  of  his  personal  attendants  were  fishermen,  so  the 
fifth,  whose  vocation  is  recorded,  was  selected  from  among  the  publi¬ 
cans,  and  called  from  the  actual  discharge  of  his  official  functions.  The 
three  evangelists,  by  whom  this  interesting  incident  has  been  pre¬ 
served,  agree  in  making  it  directly  follow  the  miraculous  cure  of  the 
paralytic.  Passing  hy  or  along,  from  Capernaum,  where  the  preced¬ 
ing  miracle  was  wrought  (Mark  2,  1)  to  the  lake-shore  (ib.  v.  13),  he 
saw  a  person  acting  as  a  publican.  (See  above,  on  5,46.)  Peceipt 
of  custom,  or,  as  most  interpreters  explain  the  term,  the  place  of  such 
receipt,  not  necessarily  a  house,  perhaps  a  temporary  office  or  a  mere 
shed,  such  as  Wiclif  calls  a  tolboth  (follPooth),  a  name  transferred 
in  Scotland  to  the  common  gaol.  At  this  place,  perhaps  upon  the  water¬ 
side,  he  saw  a  person  sitting  and  engaged  in  his  official  duties,  whom 
he  called  to  follow  him,  a  call  which  he  instantly  obeyed,  abandoning 
his  former  business  (Luke  5,  28).  It  is  not  affirmed,  or  even  neces¬ 
sarily  implied,  that  this  was  his  first  knowledge  of  the  Saviour.  Ihe 
analogy  of  the  calls  before  described  (4, 18-22)  makes  it  not  improb¬ 
able  that  this  man,  like  his  predecessors,  had  already  heard  him,  and 
perhaps  received  an  intimation  that  his  services  would  bo  required. 
It  can  scarcely  be  fortuitous  in  all  these  cases  that  the  persons  called, 
though  previously  acquainted  with  the  Saviour,  had  returned  to  or 


256 


MATTHEW  9,9.10. 

continued  in  their  former  occupation,  and  were  finally  summoned  to 
attend  their  Master  while  engaged  in  the  performance  of  its  duties. 
The  person  here  called,  Luke  names  Lem^  Mark  more  fully,  Lem^  son 
of  Al'pheus,  In  none  of  the  four  lists  of  the  apostles  is  the  name 
of  Lem  found,  but  in  one  of  them  (10,  3),  a  publican  is  mentioned 
by  the  name  of  Matthew^  the  very  name  which  an  old  and  uniform 
tradition  has  connected  with  that  gospel  as  its  author.  The  combina¬ 
tion  of  these  statements,  which  some  German  writers  in  their  igno¬ 
rance  of  practical  and  public  jurisprudence,  represent  as  contradictory, 
no  judge  or  jury  in  America  or  England  would  hesitate  or  scruple  to 
regard  as  proving  that  the  Matthew  of  one  gospel  and  the  Levi  of  the 
other  two  are  one  and  the  same  person.  This  same  diversity  exists  in 
relation  to  the  hypothesis  or  theory,  by  which  the  difference  of  name 
may  be  accounted  for.  While  one  class  treats  it  as  a  mere  harmonical 
device  without  intrinsic  probability,  the  other  thinks  it  altogether  nat¬ 
ural  and  in  accordance  with  analogy,  that  this  man,  like  so  many 
persons  in  the  sacred  history,  Paul,  Peter,  Mark,  &c.,  had  a  double 
name,  one  of  which  superseded  the  other  after  his  conversion.  In  this 
case  it  was  natural  that  Matthew  himself  should  use  the  name  by 
which  he  had  so  long  been  known  as  an  apostle,  yet  without  conceal¬ 
ing  his  original  employment,  and  that  Mark  and  Luke  should  use  the 
name  by  which  he  had  been  known  before,  when  they  relate  his  con¬ 
version,  but  in  enumerating  the  apostles  should  exchange  ft  for  his 
apostolic  title.  This  hypothesis  is  certainly  more  probable  than  that  of 
a  mistake  on  either  side,  or  that  of  a  confusion  between  two  conver¬ 
sions,  those  of  Levi  and  Matthew,  both  of  whom  were  publicans,  and 
one  of  whom  was  an  apostle,  but  confounded  by  tradition  with  the 
other ! 

10.  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  Jesus  sat  at  meat  in  the 
house,  behold,  many  publicans  and  sinners  came  and  sat 
down  with  him  and  his  disciples. 

Having  gone  back  to  record  his  own  vocation,  JMatthew  now 
reverts  to  what  may  have  occurred  long  after,  on  our  Lord’s  re¬ 
turn  from  the  eastern  shore,  where  he  had  exorcised  the  demoniacs. 
The  chronological  order  is  here  easily  determined  by  the  parallels 
(Mark  5, 21.  Luke  8,  40),  both  which  represent  what  follows  as  imme¬ 
diately  subsequent  to  the  return  just  mentioned,  whereas  Matthew 
gives  no  such  specification  and  must  therefore  be  elucidated  by  the 
others.  It  is  only  an  apparent  disagreement  with  them,  that  he  puts 
the  feast  and  conversation  in  immediate  juxtaposition  with  his  own 
vocation.  He  does  not  say  they  were  immediately  successive,  and  his 
order  is  readily  accounted  for  by  simply  assuming,  what  is  altogether 
natural,  that  Matthew,  when  about  to  mention  what  occurred  in  his 
own  house,  pauses  a  moment  to  explain  how  Jesus  came  to  be  there. 
This  is  still  more  natural  when  we  consider  that  the  feast  in  question 
was  attended  by  a  multitude  of  publicans,  to  which  class  Matthew 
had  himself  belonged.  It  is  as  if  he  had  said,  writing  in  his  own  per- 


MATTHEW  9,10.11.12. 


257 


son,  ‘  I  remember  well  when  Jesus  went  with  Jairus,  for  he  left  my 
own  house  where  he  had  been  answering  the  cavils  of  the  Pharisees 
against  his  keeping  company  with  publicans,  many  of  whom  were  at 
my  table,  as  I  had  myself  been  one  of  them,  and  was  actually  serving 
as  such,  when  the  Master  called  me,  as  he  came  out  of  Capernaum 
after  healing  the  paralytic.’  The  house  might  be  either  that  of  Jesus 
or  of  Matthew  5  but  the  ambiguity  is  solved  by  Luke  (5,  29)  who  tells 
us  that  the  publican  apostle  made  a  great  reception  (doxrju)  for  him  in 
his  house,  a  circumstance  modestly  omitted  inhis  own  account  of  these 
transactions.  We  have  then  a  double  reason  for  the  fact  that  many 
publicans  and  sinners  sat  (reclined)  at  meat  with  Christ  and  his  dis¬ 
ciples  ;  first,  the  one  expressed  by  Mark,  that  this  unhappy  class  was 
very  numerous,  and  very  generally  followed  Christ,  to  hear  his  doc¬ 
trine  and  experience  his  kindness  ;  and  then,  the  one  implied  by  Luke, 
that  he  who  gave  this  entertainment  was  himself  a  publican,  and  there¬ 
fore  likely  to  invite  or  to  admit  his  own  associates  in  office  and  in  dis¬ 
repute.  Sat  at  meat^  literally,  lay  down  or  reclined^  then  the  cus¬ 
tomary  attitude  at  meals,  as  explained  above  (on  8, 11). 

11.  And  when  the  Pharisees  saw  (it),  they  said  unto 
his  disciples,  Why  eateth  your  master  with  publicans  and 
sinners  ? 

The  unavoidable  publicity  of  almost  all  our  Saviour’s  movements, 
and  the  agitated  state  of  public  feeling  with  respect  to  him,  would  nec¬ 
essarily  prevent  a  private  and  select  assemblage  even  in  a  private 
house.  It  is  only  by  neglecting  this  peculiar  state  of  things  that  any 
difficulty  can  be  felt  as  to  the  presence  of  censorious  enemies  at  Mat¬ 
thew’s  table  or  within  his  hospitable  doors,  if  not  as  guests,  as  spec¬ 
tators  or  as  spies.  These  unwelcome  visitors  were  Pharisees  or  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  great  ceremonial  party  (see  above,  on  3,  7.  5,  20).  Nothing 
could  be  more  at  variance  with  their  hollow  ceremonial  sanctity  than 
Christ’s  association  with  these  excommunicated  sinners  and  apostates, 
and  especially  his  free  participation  in  their  food,  on  which  the  Jews  of 
that  age  especially  insisted  as  a  means  and  mark  of  separation  from 
the  Gentiles  (Acts  10, 28),  and  from  those  among  themselves  whom 
they  regarded  as  mere  heathen  (see  below,  on  18, 17).  Unprepared 
as  yet  to  make  an  open  opposition  to  the  Saviour,  and  perhaps  awed 
by  his  presence,  they  present  their  complaint  in  the  indirect  form  of 
an  interrogation  addressed  not  to  him  but  his  disciples.  The  suppos¬ 
ed  extravagance  of  Christ’s  pretensions  was  aggravated,  in  the  eyes 
of  his  accusers,  by  a  seeming  inconsistency  of  his  behaviour  with  re¬ 
spect  to  friendships  and  associations.  While  he  claimed  an  authority 
above  that  of  any  prophet,  he  consorted  with  the  most  notorious  vio¬ 
lators  of  the  law,  who  were  excluded  by  all  strict  Jews  from  their 
social  and  ecclesiastical  communion. 


12.  But  when  Jesus  heard  (that),  he  said  unto  them. 


258 


MATTHEW  9,12.13. 

They  that  be  whole  need  not  a  physician,  but  they  that 
are  sick. 

The  original  construction  is,  hut  Jesus  hearing.  Though  address¬ 
ed  to  the  disciples,  the  objection  is  replied  to  by  our  Lord  himself,  and 
as  usual  in  an  unexpected  form,  presenting  the  true  question  at  issue, 
and  suggesting  the  true  principle  or  method  of  solution.  Their  re¬ 
proach  implied  a  false  view  of  his  whole  work  and  mission,  w^hich  was 
that  of  a  physician  ;  the  disease  was  sin  ;  the  more  sinful  any  man  or 
class  of  men  were,  the  more  were  they  in  need  of  his  attentions.  The 
very  idea  of  a  healer  or  physician  presupposes  sickness  ;  they  that  are 
whole  (or  well,  in  good  health)  need  no  such  assistance.  Be 
and  are  must  here  be  taken  as  exact  equivalents,  the  former  being  in 
old  English,  an  indicative  as  well  as  a  subjunctive  form,  and  no  such 
distinction  being  made  in  the  translation  of  the  parallels,  where  ore  is 
twice  repeated  (Mark  2, 17.  Luke  5,  31).  In  all  three  places  the  original 
construction  is  the  participial  one,  so  constantly  avoided  in  our  Eng¬ 
lish  versions,  and  in  this  case  really  forbidden  by  our  idiom,  those  being 
strong,  those  haring  {themselves)  ill.  For  the  usage  of  this  last  phrase, 
see  above,  on  4,  24  and  8, 16. 

13.  But  go  ye  and  learn  wliat  (that)  meaneth,  I  will 
have  mercy,  and  not  sacrifice  :  for  I  am  not  come  to  call 
the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  repentance. 

It  is  highly  characteristic  of  this  Gospel  that  although  it  has  thus 
far  differed  from  the  other  two  in  this  passage  only  by  omitting  some 
things  which  they  give,  it  here  makes  an  addition  to  their  text,  and 
one  precisely  like  that  in  8,  17,  consisting  of  a  quotation  from  the 
prophet  Hosea  (6,  6),  which  is  introduced  as  something  with  which 
they  were  familiar  in  the  letter,  although  culpably  ignorant  of  its 
spirit  and  true  meaning.  Go,  literally,  going,  or  still  more  exactly, 
haring  gone  (away  for  the  purpose).  This  is  not  a  pleonastic  phrase, 
but  adds  to  the  severity  of  the  reproach  by  sending  them  away,  as  if 
to  school,  or  to  their  books,  to  learn  what  they  should  have  known 
already,  and  what  some  of  them  were  bound  ex  officio  to  make  known 
to  others.  What  that  meaneth,  literally,  what  {it)  is,  or  connecting 
it  directly  with  what  follows,  what  is,  I  will  hare  mercy.  The  sense 
is  given  in  the  English  version,  but  without  the  peculiar  form 
which  is  foreign  from  our  idiom.  The  quotation  is  made  in  the  words 
of  the  Septuagint  version  as  given  in  some  copies,  though  the  Vati¬ 
can  (considered  as  the  oldest)  text  retains  the  comparative  form  of 
the  original  (^  ^vaiav),  rather  (or  more)  than  sacrifice.  The  strong 
negative  in  Matthew  may  be  either  an  adoption  of  the  version  current 
among  Greek  readers,  or  an  authoritative  change  enhancing  the  orig¬ 
inal  expression,  as  if  ho  had  said,  ‘  I  not  only  desire  sacrifice  less  than 
mercy,  but  not  at  all  when  they  are  incompatible.’  Will  hare  in  the 
original  is  simply  will,  not  as  an  auxiliary  but  an  independent  verb 
meaning  to  desire,  like  the  tiebrew  one  which  it  translates.  Sacrifice 


MATTHEW  9,13. 


259 


(originally  slaying)  is  here  put  for  all  ceremonial  services  and  in  an¬ 
tithesis  to  mercy  or  the  exercise  of  kindness  and  benevolence  towards 
those  who  sulFer,  and  on  God’s  part  towards  his  sinful  and  unworthy  crea¬ 
tures.  The  application  evidently  is,  that  the  Pharisees  ignored  or  vio¬ 
lated  this  great  principle  in  censuring  our  Lord  for  his  association  with 
the  very  persons  whom  he  came  to  save.  The  figurative  description  of 
his  work,  in  v.  12,  is  now  followed  by  a  literal  one.  The  oldest  manu¬ 
scripts  and  latest  critics  read,  I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous^  hut  sin¬ 
ners.  This,  taken  by  itself,  would  seem  to  mean  simply  that  his  er¬ 
rand  was  to  sinners,  that  his  message  was  addressed  to  them.  But 
the  parallel  passage  in  Luke  (5,  32),  as  well  as  the  received  text  of 
I\Iark  and  ]\Iatthew,  adds  the  words,  to  repentance^  thus  giving  to  the 
verb  cal\  at  least  in  reference  to  the  last  clause,  the  specific  sense  of 
summoning,  inviting,  or  exhorting.  Some  interpreters,  suppose  that 
this  limitation  of  the  meaning  does  not  extend  to  the  righteous,  who 
are  said  to  be  called  (or  not  called)  in  the  vague  sense  above  given — 
‘  I  came  not  to  address  the  righteous,  but  to  summon  sinners  to  re¬ 
pentance.’  There  is  something  very  harsh,  however,  in  supposing  the 
same  verb  to  have  two  senses  in  one  sentence  without  being  even  re¬ 
peated.  A  far  more  natural  construction  is  to  give  it  the  same  sense 
in  relation  to  both  classes,  or  in  other  words,  to  let  the  additional 
phrase  {to  repentance)  qualif}^  the  whole  clause.  ‘  I  came  not  to  call  the 
righteous  to  repentance,  but  sinners.’  To  this  it  is  objected  that  re¬ 
pentance  is  not  predicable  of  the  righteous.  This  depends  upon  the 
meaning  of  the  latter  term.  If  it  denote,  as  some  allege,  comparatively 
righteous,  i.  e.  less  atrociously  or  notoriously  wicked ;  or,  as  others 
think,  self-righteous,  righteous  in  their  own  eyes  ;  then  the  righteous 
need  repentance  and  the  call  to  repentance  just  as  much  as  others.  If 
it  mean  absolutely  righteous,  i.  e.  free  from  sin,  which  is  the  proper 
meaning,  and  the  one  here  required  by  the  antithesis  with  sinners,  it 
is  true  that  such  cannot  repent,  and  need  not  be  exhorted  to  repent¬ 
ance  ;  but  this  is  the  very  thing  affirmed  according  to  the  natural 
construction.  ‘  You  reproach  me  for  my  intercourse  with  sinners,  but 
my  very  mission  is  to  call  men  to  repentance,  and  repentance  pre¬ 
supposes  sin  ;  I  did  not  come  to  call  the  righteous  to  repentance,  for 
they  do  not  need  it  and  cannot  exercise  it,  but  to  call  sinners  as  such 
to  repentance.’  By  confining  to  repentance  to  the  second  member  of 
the  clause,  the  very  thing  most  pointedly  affirmed  is  either  left  out  or 
obscurely  hinted.  Another  error  asYo  this  verse  is  the  error  of  sup¬ 
posing  that  our  Saviour  recognizes  the  existence  of  a  class  of  sinless  or 
absolutely  righteous  men  among  those  whom  he  found  upon  the  earth 
at  his  first  advent.  But  the  distinction  which  he  draws  is  not  between 
two  classes  of  men,  but  between  two  characters  or  conditions  of  the 
whole  race  By  the  righteous  and  sinners  he  does  not  mean  those  men 
who  are  actually  righteous,  and  those  other  men  who  are  actually  sin¬ 
ners,  but  mankind  as  righteous  and  mankind  as  sinners.  ‘  I  came  not 
to  call  men  as  unfallen  sinless  beings  to  repentance,  which  would  be  a 
contradiction,  but  as  sinners,  which  they  all  arc ;  and  I  therefore  not 
only  may  but  must  associate  with  sinners,  as  the  very  objects  of  my 


260 


MATTHEW  9,  13.  14. 

mission  ;  just  as  the  physician  cannot  do  his  work  without  coming  into 
contact  with  the  sick,  who  are  alone  in  need  of  healing.’  He  does  not 
mean  of  course  that  his  errand  was  to  Publicans  (as  sinners),  not  to 
Pharisees  (as  righteous),  but  simply  that  the  worse  the  former  were, 
the  more  completely  did  they  fall  within  the  scope  of  his  benignant 
mission. 

14.  Then  came  to  him  the  disciples  of  John,  saying, 
Why  do  we  and  the  Pharisees  fast  oft,  hut  thy  disciples 
fast  not  ? 

Near  akin  to  the  charge  of  undue  condescension  and  familiar  inter¬ 
course  with  sinners  is  that  of  a  free  and  self-indulgent  life,  to  the 
neglect  of  all  ascetic  mortifications.  The  disciples  of  John  are  by 
some  regarded  as  worthy  representatives  of  John  himself,  holding  his 
doctrines  and  his  relative  position  with  respect  to  the  Messiah.  But 
this  position  was  no  longer  tenable  ;  the  ministry  of  John  was  essen¬ 
tially  prospective  and  preparatory  ;  its  very  object  was  to  bring  men 
to  Christ  as  the  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  w'orld 
(John  1,  29).  Had  all  John’s  followers  imbibed  his  spirit  and  obeyed 
his  precepts,  they  would  all  have  become  followers  of  Christ,  as  some 
did.  But  even  while  John  was  at  liberty,  and  in  despite  of  his  re¬ 
monstrances,  some  of  his  disciples  cherished  a  contracted  zeal  for  him 
as  the  competitor  of  Christ  (John  3,  26),  and  afterwards  became  a  new 
religious  party,  equally  unfaithful  to  the  principal  and  the  forerunner. 
These  are  the  disciples  of  John  mentioned  in  the  gospel,  after  his  im¬ 
prisonment  and  the  consequent  cessation  of  his  public  ministry.  Of 
their  numbers  and  organic  state  we  have  no  information.  From  the 
passage  now  before  us,  where  they  are  connected  with  the  Pharisees, 
not  only  by  the  history  but  by  themselves,  it  is  probable  that  John’s 
severe  means  of  awakening  the  conscience  and  producing  deep  repent¬ 
ance  were  continued  as  a  ceremonial  form  after  the  spirit  had  depart¬ 
ed.  A  remnant  of  this  school  or  party  reappears  in  Acts  19, 1-7,  and 
with  a  further  but  most  natural  corruption  in  one  or  more  heretical 
phenomena  of  later  history.  The  neglect  complained  of  would  be 
equally  offensive  to  the  followers  of  John  and  to  the  Pharisees,  how¬ 
ever  they  might  differ  as  to  more  important  matters.  For  what^  i.  e. 
for  what  cause  or  reason?  Fast^  i.  e.  habitually,  statedly,  as  a  matter 
of  observance,  not  as  an  occasional  auxiliary  to  devotion,  or  a  special 
means  of  spiritual  discipline.  The  only  stated  fast  prescribed  in  the 
Mosaic  law  is  that  of  the  great  day  of  atonement,  in  which  were  sum¬ 
med  up  all  the  expiatory  ceremonies  of  the  year  (Lev.  16,  29-34).  But 
before  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament  canon,  we  find  traces  of  addi¬ 
tional  fasts  added  by  the  Jews  themselves  (Zech.  8, 19),  and  in  the 
time  of  Christ  an  intimation  by  himself  that  the  Pharisees  observed 
two  weekly  fasts  (Luke  18, 12).  The  Jewish  traditions,  though  of 
later  date,  confirm  the  general  fact  here  stated.  The  fasts  observed  by 
John’s  disciples  were  either  the  traditional  ones  common  to  all  other 


261 


MATTHEW  9,14.15. 

Jews,  or  formal  repetitions  of  those  used  by  John  as  temporary  rem¬ 
edies,  perhaps  a  servile  imitation  of  his  personal  austerity  and  absti¬ 
nence.  We  have  no  reason  to  believe,  and  it  is  highly  improbable, 
indeed,  that  John  himself  established  stated  fasts,  which  would  seem 
to  be  at  variance  with  his  intermediate  position,  as  the  last  prophet  of 
the  old  dispensation  and  the  herald  of  the  new,  but  commissioned 
neither  to  improve  upon  the  one  nor  to  anticipate  the  other.  But  thy 
disciples  fastnot^  though  a  simple  statement  of  a  fact,  derives  from  its 
connection  a  censorious  character,  as  if  they  meant  to  say,  how  is  this 
omission  to  be  justified  or  reconciled  with  thy  pretensions  as  a  teacher 
sent  from  God '?  (John  3,2.)  In  this  case  they  complain  to  him  of  his 
disciples,  as  in  that  before  it  they  complain  to  them  of  him  (v.  11), 
and  in  the  first  which  Mark  records  merely  condemn  him  in  their  hearts 
without  giving  oral  expression  to  their  censures  (v.  3,  4).  This  charge, 
though  indirect  and  interrogative  in  form,  may  be  regarded  as  con¬ 
firming  what  we  know  from  other  quarters,  and  especially  from 
Christ’s  own  words  below,  that  his  life  and  that  of  his  disciples  were 
alike  free  from  the  opposite  extremes  of  frivolous  self-indulgence  and 
austere  moroseness. 

15.  And  Jesns  said  unto  them,  Can  the  children  of 
the  hride-chamher  mourn,  as  long  as  the  bridegroom  is 
with  them  ?  but  the  days  will  come,  when  the  bride¬ 
groom  shall  be  taken  from  them,  and  then  shall  they 
fast. 

The  reply  to  this  charge  is  as  unexpected  and  original  in  form  as 
either  of  the  others,  and  made  still  more  striking  by  its  being  borrowed 
from  familiar  customs  of  the  age  and  country,  namely,  from  its  mar¬ 
riage  ceremonies,  and  particularly  from  the  practice  of  the  bridegroom 
bringing  home  his  bride  Accompanied  by  chosen  friends  of  either  sex, 
rejoicing  over  them  and  for  them.  These,  in  the  oriental  idiom,  were 
styled  children  of  the  bridal  chamber,  i.  e  specially  belonging  to  it  and 
connected  with  it,  something  more  than  mere  guests  or  attendants  at 
the  wedding.  The  specific  term  sons^  here  used  in  all  the  gospels,  des¬ 
ignates  the  male  attendants  upon  such  occasions.  The  tyvidegroom  is 
in  Greek  an  adjective  derived  from  hride  and  answering  to  'bridal^  nup¬ 
tial,  Used  absolutely,  it  denotes  the  bridal  {man)^  or  bridesman,^  call¬ 
ed  in  English  bridegroom,  and  differing  from  husband ]\i^i  as  bride  doQ'S, 
from  wife.  They  may  be  here  a  double  allusion,  first,  to  the  favourite 
Old  Testament  figure  of  a  conjugal  relation  between  God  and  Israel 
(as  in  Ps.  xlv.  Isai.  liv.  Jer.  ii.  IIos.  iii.),  and  then  to  John  the  Bap¬ 
tist’s  beautiful  description  of  the  mutual  relation  between  him  and 
Christ  as  that  of  the  bridegroom  and  the  bridegroom’s  friend  (John 
3,  29).  The  form  of  the  question  is  highly  idiomatic,  being  that  used 
when  a  negative  answer  is  expected.  The  nearest  approach  to  it  in 
English  is  a  negative  followed  by  a  question — ‘  they  cannot — can  they  1  ’ 
The  incapacity  implied  is  not  a  physical  but  moral  one.  They  cannot 


262 


MATTHEW  9,15,16. 


be  expected,  or  required  to  fast ;  there  is  no  reason  why  they  should 
fast.  The  general  principle  involved  or  presupposed  is  that  fasting  is 
not  a  periodical  or  stated,  but  a  special  and  occasional  observance, 

'  growing  out  of  a  particular  emergency.  This  doctrine  underlies  the 
whole  defence  of  his  disciples,  which  proceeds  upon  the  supposition 
that  a  fast,  to  be  acceptable  and  useful,  must  have  a  reason  and  occa¬ 
sion  of  its  own,  beyond  a  general  propriety  or  usage.  It  is  also  taught 
that  fasting  is  not  a  mere  oinis  operatum^  but  the  cause  and  the  effect 
of  a  particular  condition,  that  of  spiritual  grief  or  sorrow.  The 
duty  of  fasting  being  thus  dependent  upon  circumstances,  may  and 
will  become  incumbent  when  those  circumstances  change,  as  they  are 
certainly  to  change  hereafter.  The  bridegroom  is  not  always  to  be 
visibly  ))resent,  and  when  he  departs,  the  time  of  fasting  will  be  come. 
To  express  this  still  more  strongly,  he  is  said  to  be  removed  or  taken 
away,  as  if  by  violence.  Then^  at  the  time  of  this  removal,  as  an  im¬ 
mediate  temporary  cause  of  sorrow,  not  forever  afterwards,  which 
would  be  inconsistent  with  the  principle  already  laid  down,  that  the 
value  of  religious  fasting  is  dependent  on  its  being  an  occasional  and 
not  a  stated  duty.  There  is  no  foundation  therefore  for  the  doctrine  of 
some  Romish  writers,  who  evade  this  argument  against  their  stated  fasts, 
by  alleging  that  according  to  our  Lord’s  own  declaration,  the  church 
after  his  departure  was  to  be  a  fasting  church.  But  this  would  be 
equivalent  to  saying  that  the  Saviour’s  exaltation  would  consign  his 
people  to  perpetual  sorrow.  For  he  evidently  speaks  of  grief  and  fast¬ 
ing  as  inseparable,  and  the  two  terms  are  here  used  as  convertible. 


16.  No  man  puttetli  a  piece  of  new  cloth  unto  an  old 
garment  :  for  that  which  is  put  in  to  fill  it  up,  taketh 
from  the  garment,  and  the  rent  is  made  v^^orse. 

Although  Matthew  has  not  3mt  recorded  any  of  Christ’s  formal 
parables,  he  gives  us  in  this  passage  several  examples  of  his  parabolical 
method  of  instruction,  i.  e.  by  illustration  drawn  from  the  analogies  of 
real  life.  Having  already  employed  some  of  the  prevailing  marriage 
customs  to  account  for  the  neglect  of  all  austerities  b}''  his  disciples,  he 
proceeds  to  enforce  the  general  principle  which  he  is  lajdng  down,  by 
other  analogies  derived  from  the  festivities  of  such  occasions,  and  par¬ 
ticularly  from  dresses  and  the  drinks  which  were  considered  indis¬ 
pensable  at  marriage  feasts.  The  first  parable,  as  it  is  expressly  call¬ 
ed  by  Luke  (5,  36),  is  suggested  by  the  homely  but  familiar  art  of 
patching,  and  consists  in  a  description  of  the  general  practice  of  what 
everybody  does,  or  rather  of  what  no  one  does,  in  such  a  matter.  This 
appeal  to  constant  universal  usage  shows,  that  however  we  may  un¬ 
derstand  the'  process  here  alluded  to,  it  must  have  been  entirely  famil¬ 
iar  and  intelligible  to  the  hearers.  The  essential  undisputed  points 
are  that  he  represents  it  as  an  unheard-of  and  absurd  thing  to  combine 
an  old  and  new  dress,  by  sewing  parts  of  one  upon  the  other.  The  in¬ 
congruity,  thus  stated  by  Matthew  and  Luke  (5,  36),  is  rendered  much 


MATTHEW  9,16.17. 


263 


more  clear  by  Mark’s  explanation  of  a  new  dress,  as  meaning  one  com¬ 
posed  of  unfulled  eloth^  and  therefore  utterly  unfit  for  the  kind  of 
combination  here  alluded  to.  Both  the  text  and  the  construction 
of  the  next  clause  has  been  much  disputed  j  but  the  true  sense  « 
seems  to  be  the  one  expressed  in  the  common  version,  namely,  that 
the  new  piece  or  filling  up,  by  shrinking  or  by  greater  strength  of 
fibre,  loosens  or  weakens  the  old  garment  still  more,  and  the  rent  be¬ 
comes  worse.  The  essential  idea  here  expressed  is  evidently  that  of 
incongruity,  with  special  reference  to  old  and  new.  It  admits  of  va¬ 
rious  applications  to  the  old  and  new  economy,  the  old  and  new  na¬ 
ture  of  the  individual,  and  many  other  contrasts  of  condition  and  of 
character.  The  primary  use  of  it,  suggested  by  the  context  and  his¬ 
torical  occasion,  was  to  teach  the  authors  of  this  charge  that  they  must 
not  expect  in  the  Messiah’s  kingdom  a  mere  patching  up  of  what  had 
had  its  day  and  done  its  office,  by  empirical  repairs  and  emendations  of 
a  later  date,  but  an  entire  renovation  of  the  church  and  of  religion  ;  not 
as  to  its  essence  or  its  vital  principle,  but  as  to  all  its  outward  forms 
and  vehicles.  As  the  usages  immediately  in  question  were  of  human 
not  divine  institution,  whatever  there  may  be  in  this  similitude  of  sar¬ 
casm  or  contempt,  belongs  not  even  to  the  temporary  forms  of  the 
Mosaic  dispensation,  but  to  its  traditional  excrescences. 

17.  Neither  do  men  put  new  wine  into  old  bottles  : 
else  the  bottles  break,  and  the  wine  runneth  out,  and  the 
bottles  perish  :  but  they  put  new  wine  into  new  bottles, 
and  both  are  preserved. 

The  same  essential  truth  is  now  propounded  in  another  parabolic 
form,  likewise  borrowed  from  the  experience  of  common  life.  Instead 
of  old  and  new  cloth,  the  antithesis  is  now  between  old  and  new  skins 
as  receptacles  for  new  wine,  the  fermenting  strength  of  which  distends 
the  fresh  skins  without  injury,  but  bursts  the  rigid  leather  of  the  old 
ones.  Men^  as  in  5,  15,  and  often  elsewhere,  represents  the  indefinite 
subject  of  the  verb.  The  present  tense  denotes  what  is  usually  done  in 
such  a  case.  The  word  hottUs  is  of  course  to  be  explained  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  oriental  use  of  goat  skins  to  preserve  and  carry  water, 
milk,  wine,  and  other  liquids.  The  attempt  to  determine  who  are 
meant  by  the  bottles,  and  what  by  the  wine,  proceeds  upon  a  false  as¬ 
sumption  with  respect  to  the  structure  and  design  of  parables,  which 
are  not  to  bo  expounded  by  adjusting  the  minute  points  of  resemblance 
first,  and  then  deducing  from  the  aggregate  a  general  conclusion,  but 
by  first  ascertaining  the  main  analogy,  and  then  adjusting  the  details 
to  suit  it.  (See  below,  on  13,  3.)  This  is  the  method  universally 
adopted  in  expounding  fables,  which  are  only  a  particular  species  of  the 
parable,  distinguished  by  the  introduction  of  the  lower  animals,  as  rep¬ 
resentatives  of  moral  agents.  In  explaining  AUsop’s  I'able  of  the  Fox 
and  the  Grapes,  no  one  ever  thinks  of  putting  a  distinctive  meaning  on 
the  grapes,  as  a  particular  kind  of  fruit,  or  on  the  limbs  of  the  fox  as 


264 


MATTHEW  9,17.18. 


having  each  its  own  significance.  Yet  this  is  the  expository  method 
almost  universally  applied  to  the  parables.  By  varying  the  form  of  his 
illustration  here,  without  a  change  in  its  essential  import,  he  teaches 
us  to  ascertain  the  latter  first,  and  then  let  the  mere  details  adjust 
themselves  accordingly.  The  last  clause  furnishes  the  key  to  both 
similitudes.  New  wine  must  be  put  into  new  bottles.  In  religion,  no 
less  than  in  secular  affairs,  new  emergencies  require  new  means  to  meet 
them;  but  these  new  means  are  not  to  be  devised  by  human  wisdom, 
but  appointed  by  divine  authority. 


18.  While  he  spake  these  things  unto  them,  behold, 
there  came  a  certain  ruler,  and  worshipped  him,  saying. 
My  daughter  is  even  now  dead  :  hut  come  and  lay  thy 
hand  upon  her,  and  she  shall  live. 

We  now  come  to  the  narrative  of  two  sreat  miracles,  woven  to- 
gether  in  the  history  as  they  were  in  fact,  the  one  having  been  per¬ 
formed  by  Christ  while  on  his  way  to  work  the  other.  These  things 
he  saying  to  them  fixes  the  succession  of  the  incidents,  which  is  the 
same,  though  not  so  expressly  stated,  in  the  other  gospels.  Euler,  in 
Greek  ArcJion,  originally  meaning  one  who  takes  the  lead,  applied  in 
history  to  the  chief  magistrates  of  Athens.  A  certain,  literally,  one,  the 
same  unusual  expression  that  occurs  above  in  8,  19,  and  here  as  there 
must  be  definitely  understood  as  meaning  one  among  so  many,  one 
out  of  a  greater  number,  as  if  he  had  said,  ‘  among  those  who  applied 
to  him  for  aid  was  one  belonging  to  the  class  of  rulers,’  or  as  Mark 
explains  it  (2,  22),  one  of  the  archi- synagogues  (or  rulers  of  the  syna¬ 
gogue),  i.  e.  one  of  the  national  hereditary  elders  of  the  Jews,  among 
whose  functions  was  the  local  conduct  of  religious  discipline  and  wor¬ 
ship  (see  above,  on  4,  23.)  The  idea  of  a  separate  organization  and  a 
distinct  class  of  officers  appears  to  have  arisen  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  and  could  not  therefore  be  the  model  of  the  Christian 
Church  which  had  its  pattern  not  in  later  Jewish  institutions,  but  in 
the  permanent  essential  part  of  the  old  theocracy,  including  its  prime¬ 
val  patriarchal  eldership,  one  primarily  founded  upon  natural  relations 
or  the  family  government  and  thence  transferred  not  only  to  the  Jew¬ 
ish  but  to  the  Christian  church-organization.  Of  such  rulers  there 
was  alwa3^s  a  plurality  in  every  neighborhood,  but  not  a  bench  or 
council  of  elective  officers,  uniform  in  number,  as  in  the  later  syna¬ 
gogues,  when  the  dispersion  of  the  people  had  destroyed  the  ancient 
constitution  and  the  present  synagogue  arrangement  had  been  substi¬ 
tuted  for  it.  But  as  this  arrangement  is  without  divine  authority, 
nothing  is  gained  but  something  lost  by  tracing  the  New  Testament 
church  polity  to  this  source,  instead  of  tracing  it  back  further  to  the 
presbyterial  forms  of  the  theocracy  itself.  The  elders  who  were  ex 
officio  rulers  of  the  sjmagogue,  i.  e.  directors  of  its  discipline  and  wor¬ 
ship,  had,  both  by  birth  and  office,  the  highest  rank  and  social  position. 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  9,  18.  19  20. 


265 


This  application  for  assistance  therefore  came  from  the  most  respecta¬ 
ble  and  influential  quarter.  The  preservation  of  this  ruler’s  name 
(Jairus)  Mark  (5,  22)  and  Luke  (8,  41),  but  not  by  Matthew,  shows 
how  far  the  others  are  from  merely  abridging  or  transcribing  him. 
Worslil'pped  or  did  him  reverence,  by  falling  at  his  feet  (Mark 
5,  22.  Luke  8,  41).  As  to  the  import  of  this  action,  see  above,  on  8, 
2.  Is  even  now  dead,  literally,  just  now  died,  a  strong  expression  of 
his  fear  that  she  must  be  dead  by  this  time,  and  therefore  not  at  vari¬ 
ance  with  the  more  deliberate  expressions  in  the  other  gospels  (Mark 
5,  23.  Luke  8, 42.)  The  request  in  the  last  clause  implies  a  belief  that 
personal  presence  and  corporeal  contact  were  essential  to  the  cure. 
This  was  the  popular  belief,  to  which  the  faith  of  the  centurion  rose  su¬ 
perior  (see  above,  on  8, 10),  and  which  our  Lord  appears  to  have  rebuked 
in  a  person  of  still  higher  rank.  (See  John  4,  46—54.)  That  the  pa¬ 
rent’s  faith  in  this  case  was  not  wholly  wanting,  appears  from  the 
request  itself,  and  from  the  strong  expression,  She  shall  (i.  e.  certainly 
will)  live,  which  may  either  mean,  still  live  if  yet  alive,  or  live  again, 
revive,  if  dead  already. 

19.  And  Jesus  arose,  and  followed  him,  and  (so  did) 
his  disciples. 

Rising  up,  literally,  raised  or  roused,  i.  e.  from  table  in  the  house 
of  Matthew  (see  above,  on  v.  10),  who  would  therefore  naturally  have 
a  vivid  recollection  of  the  whole  scene.  His  disciples,  in  the  wide 
sense  of  adherents,  or  at  least  of  personal  attendants,  those  who  fol¬ 
lowed  him  from  place  to  place,  which  was  done,  however,  in  the  pres¬ 
ent  instance  by  a  great  crowd  (Mark  5,  24),  f»robably  of  “  publicans 
and  others”  who  were  eating  with  him  (Luke  5,  29).  We  have  seen, 
however,  that  a  crowd  was  seldom  far  off,  even  in  our  Lord’s  most 
solitary  and  sacred  hours.  (See  above,  on  8,  1.) 

20.  And  behold,  a  woman  which  was  diseased  with 
an  issue  of  blood  twelve  years,  came  behind  (him),  and 
touched  the  hem  of  his  garment. 

While  on  his  way  to  the  house  of  Jairus  he  performs  a  miracle,  the 
history  of  which  is  here  inserted  into  that  of  the  other  by  the  three  evan¬ 
gelists,  precisely  as  it  happened,  a  strong  proof  of  authenticity  and  vivid 
recollection  on  the  part  of  the  eye-witnesses.  A  woman  who'Ac.  name,  as 
usual,  is  not  recorded  (see  above,  8,  2.  5.  28.  9,  2),  that  of  Jairus  being 
mentioned  (in  the  parallels)  on  account  of  his  official  character  and  pub¬ 
lic  station.  Having  a  flow  of  hlood,  or  hemorrhage,  in  Greek  a  single 
wmrd  of  participial  form.  The  precise  nature  of  the  malady,  beyond 
this  general  description,  is  of  no  importance,  even  to  physicians,  much 
less  to  the  mass  of  readers  and  interpreters.  Instead  of  dwelling 
upon  this  point,  the  evangelist  directs  attention  to  its  long  continuance 
{twelve  years).  Coming  up  (or  to  him)  behind,  or  more  exactly  from 

12 


266 


MATTHEW  9,20.21.22. 


’behind.,  i.  e.  approaching  him  in  that  direction,  not  by  chance  or  from 
necessity,  but  for  the  purpose  of  escaping  observation.  His  garment., 
not  his  clothes  in  general,  which  is  the  meaning  of  the  plural  else¬ 
where,  but  the  robe  or  gown,  w^hich  forms  the  outer  garment  in  an 
oriental  dress,  and  which  the  Greek  word  in  the  singular  denotes. 
What  she  touched  was  not  only  this  external  garment,  but  its  very 
edge  or  border,  showing  that  her  object  was  mere  contact,  so  that  the 
slightest  and  most  superficial  touch  would  be  sufficient.  The  word 
translated  edge  is  applied  in  the  Septuagint  to  the  fringe  worn  by  the 
Jews  at  the  corners  of  their  garments  (Num.  15,  38)  ;  but  there 
seems  to  be  no  reason  here  for  departing  from  its  general  and  classical 
usage.  It  is  important,  though  it  may  be  difficult,  to  realize  the  situ¬ 
ation  of  this  woman,  once  possessed  of  health  and  wealth,  and  no 
doubt  moving  in  respectable  society,  now  beggared  and  diseased,  with¬ 
out  a  hope  of  human  help,  and  secretly  believing  in  the  power  of  the 
Christ,  and  him  alone,  to  heal  her,  yet  deterred  by  some  natural  mis¬ 
giving  and  by  shame,  perhaps  connected  with  the  nature  of  her  malady, 
from  coming  with  the  rest  to  be  publicly  recognized  and  then  relieved. 
However  commonplace  the  case  may  seem  to  many,  there  are  some  in 
whose  experience,  when  clearly  seen  and  seriously  attended  to,  it 
touches  a  mysterious  cord  of  painful  sympathy. 

21.  For  she  said  within  herself^  If  I  may  hut  touch 
his  garment,  I  shall  be  whole. 

That  she  was  not  actuated  merely  by  a  sort  of  desperate  curiosity, 
as  might  have  been  suspected  from  her  previous  history  and  present 
conduct,  but  by  real  confidence  in  Christ’s  ability  to  heal  her,  we  are 
expressly  taught  by  being  made  acquainted  with  her  inmost  thoughts 
before  her  purpose  was  accolnplished.  For  she  said  (or  was  saying., 
as  she  made  her  way  with  difficulty  through  the  crowd),  not  to  others 
and  alodd,  but  to  or  in  herself  If  I  only  touch.,  not  may  touch.,  which 
suggests  too  strongl}^  the  idea  of  permission  or  of  lawfulness,  whereas, 
the  Greek  expresses  that  of  mere  contingency.  It  is  a  slight  but 
touching  stroke  in  this  inimitable  picture,  that  she  did  not  even  choose 
the  hem  of  his  outer  garment  as  the  part  which  she  would  touch,  but 
came  in  contact  with  it  as  it  were  by  chance,  desiring  only  to  touch 
any  of  his  clothes,  no  matter  which  or  what.  I  shall  be  lehole,  liter¬ 
ally  sared^  i.  e.  from  this  disease  and  this  condition.  The  Greek  verb  is 
the  one  translated  healed  in  Mark  5,  23  a  needless  variation,  and  indeed 
injurious  to  the  beauty  of  the  passage,  as  it  mars  the  correspondence 
of  these  two  expressions  of  reliance  upon  Christ,  uttered  almost  simul¬ 
taneously  by  persons  probably  entire  strangers  to  each  other. 

22.  But  Jesus  turned  him  about,  and  when  he  saw 
her,  he  said.  Daughter,  he  of  good  comfort :  thy  faith 
hath  made  thee  whole.  And  the  woman  was  made  whole 
from  that  hour. 


2C7 


MATTHEW  9,22.23.24. 

Turning^  or  teing  turned,  in  Greek  a  passive  form,  but  with  an 
active  or  deponent  sense.  When  he  saw  her,  literally,  seeing  her,  or 
looking  at  her.  Be  of  good  comfort,  the  precise  word  used  in  v.  2,  and 
there  translated,  he  of  good  cheer.  In  both  cases,  the  afiectionate  ad¬ 
dress  {son,  daughter)  is  needlessly  transposed  in  English.  Made  ichole, 
literally,  saved,  as  in  the  preceding  verse.  The  essential  part  of  this 
occurrence  for  Matthew’s  purpose  was  the  healing  wrought  b}'-  simple 
contact  with  the  Saviour’s  dress,  which  had  precisely  the  same  virtue 
as  the  touch  of  his  hand  in  v.  25  below,  and  was  afterwards  renewed 
in  the  miracles  of  Paul  (Acts  19,  11.  12).  He  therefore  passes  over 
the  interesting  circumstance,  added  by  the  other  two  evangelists 
(Mark  5,  30-33.  Luke  8,  45-47). 

23.  And  when  Jesus  came  into  the  ruler's  house,  and 
saw  the  minstrels  and  the  people  making  a  noise. 

Here  again  Matthew  passes  over  the  message  received  by  the 
father  on  the  way  (Mark  5,  35.  36.  Luke  8,  49.  50),  as  he  does  a  simi¬ 
lar  trait  in  the  case  of  the  centurion  (see  above,  on  8,  5),  and  hurries 
on  to  the  principal  occurrence,  or  the  miracle  itself.  He  does  not  even 
mention  the  three  disciples  whom  he  suffered  to  attend  him,  who  are 
named  in  both  the  other  gospels  (jMark,  5, 37.  Luke  8,  51.)  It  is  a  mere 
cavil  to  regard  these  omissions  as  implying  that  the  facts  were  un¬ 
known  to  the  writer  or  not  found  in  the  tradition  which  he  followed. 
They  only  show  that  he  selected  his  materials,  instead  of  taking  them 
at  random,  and  so  used  them  as  form  a  compact  and  coherent  narrative. 
The  text  of  Matthew  presents  no  deficiencies  or  chasms,  and  yet  all 
the  additions  in  the  parallel  accounts  can  be  at  once  wrought  into  it. 
What  stronger  proof  can  be  desired  than  that  these  writers  used  the 
i  same  materials,  but  each  with  due  regard  to  his  own  purpose  ?  Com- 
j  ing  into  the  ruler"' s  house,  and  seeing  the pij)ers,  players  on  the  flute,  a 
:  common  practice  at  the  ancient  funerals,  and  the  crowd  or  promiscuous 
i  assemblage,  maTcing  a  noise  (so  Cranmer  and  Geneva)  either  that 
necessarily  attending  all  crowds,  or  the  uproar,  clamour,  such  as  com¬ 
monly  attend  an  oriental  funeral.*  Early  burial  was  usual  among  the 
;  ancient  Jews,  because  it  was  not  properly  interment,  but  a  deposit  of 
the  body,  frequently  uncoffined,  in  tombs  erected  above  ground,  or 
i  lateral  excavations  in  the  rock,  where  the  risk  of  death  by  premature 
!  burial  was  much  less  than  it  is  among  ourselves.  Compare  Acts  5,  6. 

:  10,  where  an  additional  security  against  such  a  mistake  existed  in  the 
‘  certain  knowledge  which  the  apostles  had,  that  Ananias  and  Sapphira 
,  were  completely  dead. 

24.  He  said  unto  them,  Give  place  :  for  the  maid  is 
not  dead,  hut  sleepeth.  And  they  laughed  him  to  scorn. 

*  Tyndale’s  version  {raging)  is  too  strong ;  the  Ilhemish  {keeping  a  stir)  ap- 
,  proaches  nearest  to  the  true  sense  of  the  word  (Sopu/dou/aevoz/.) 


268 


MATTHEW  9,24.25. 


He  says  to  tJiem^  the  mournei’S  thus  employed  m  noisy  lamenta¬ 
tion.  Give  place^  withdraw,  retreat,  a  verb  which  has  repeatedly  oc¬ 
curred  before,  but  in  a  diiferent  application  (see  above,  on  2,  12.  13.  14. 
22.  4,  12.)  Damsel^  a  Greek  diminutive  of  neuter  form,  but  meaning  a 
little  girl.  The  word  is  confined  in  the  older  classics  to  the  dialect 
of  common  life,  as  a  familiar  term  of  fondness  and  endearment ;  but 
the  later  writers  use  it  in  the  more  serious  and  elevated  style.  The 
Rhemish  version  has  the  old  and  now  too  coarse  form  wench.  Is  not 
dead,  or  did  not  die  (when  ye  supposed),  the  same  form  that  is  used 
in  Mark  6,  35.  But  sleeps,  is  sleeping,  or  asleep,  the  present  tense  de¬ 
noting  actual  condition,  as  the  aorist  before  it,  strictly  understood, 
denotes  a  previous  occurrence.  She  did  not  die  hut  sleeps.  These 
words  admit  of  two  interpretations,  each  of  which  has  had  its  advo¬ 
cates.  The  first  assigns  to  them  their  strictest  and  most  obvious  sense, 
to  wit  that  this  was  merely  an  apparent  death,  but  really  a  case  of 
stupor,  trance,  or  syncope,  which  might,  almost  without  a  figure,  be 
described  as  a  deep  protracted  slumber.  The  other  gives  a  figurative 
sense  to  both  expressions,  understanding  by  the  first  that  she  really 
was  dead  but  only  for  a  time  and  therefore  not  dead  in  the  ordinary 
acceptation  of  the  term ;  and  by  the  second  that  her  death,  though 
real,  being  transient,  might  be  naturally  called  a  sleep,  which  difiers 
from  death  chiefly  in  this  very  fact  and  the  effects  which  flow  from  it. 
This  last  is  now  very  commonly  agreed  upon  by  all  classes  of  inter¬ 
preters,  German  and  English,  neological  and  Christian,  as  the  only 
meaning  which  the  words  will  fairly  bear.  In  favour  of  this  sense  is 
the  fact  that  Jesus  used  the  same  expression  with  respect  to  Lazarus 
and  expressly  declared  that  in  that  case  sleep  meant  death  (John  11, 
11-14),  to  which  may  be  added  that  Mark  is  here  recording  signal 
miracles  as  proofs  of  Christ’s  extraordinary  power,  and  that  a  mere 
restoration  from  apparent  death  would  not  have  been  appropriate  to 
his  present  purpose.  One  of  the  best  German  philological  authorities 
has  paraphrased  our  Saviour’s  words  as  meaning,  ‘  Do  not  regard  the 
child  as  dead,  but  think  of  her  as  merely  sleeping,  since  she  is  so  soon 
to  come  to  life  again.’  And  they  (i.  e.  the  company,  or  those  whom  he 
had  thus  addressed)  laughed  at  him  (or  against  him),  i.  e.  at  his  ex¬ 
pense,  or  in  derision  of  him.  This  idea  is  expressed  in  the  English 
version  by  the  added  words,  to  scorn,  which  though  not  expressed  in 
the  original  are  not  italicised  because  supposed  to  be  included  in  the 
meaning  of  the  compound  Greek  verb  which,  according  to  another 
usage  of  the  particle  with  which  it  is  compounded,  might  be  under¬ 
stood  to  mean,  they  laughed  him  down,  or  silenced  him  by  their 
derision. 


25.  But  when  the  people  were  put  forth,  he  went  in, 
and  took  her  by  the  hand,  and  the  maid  arose. 

The  people.^  literally,  the  crowd,  a  word  in  Greek  suggesting  the 
idea  of  confusion  and  disorder,  in  accordance  with  the  previous  descrip¬ 
tion.  Put  forth,  literally  cast  out,  or  as  we  say,  turned  out,  to  describe 


MATTHEW  9,25.26.27. 


269 


a  peremptory  dismission,  whether  accompanied  by  force  or  not.  It  is 
the  term  commonly  applied  to  the  expulsion  of  intrusive  spirits  (see 
above,  on  7,  22.  8,  16.  31,  and  below,  on  vs.  33.  34).  Going  in,  or 
having  gone  in,  to  the  chamber  where  the  child  was  lying,  probably 
the  large  upper  room  (vnepooov),  which  seems  to  have  been  used  on 
such  occasions.  (Compare  Acts  9,  37.  39.)  Too^  her  by  the  band  is 
not  so  strong  as  the  original ;  which  properly  means  seized,,  laid  hold 
of.  (Wiclif  has,  held  her  hand.)  In  condescension  to  the  weakness  of 
the  father’s  faith  (see  above,  on  v.  18),  our  Lord  here  establishes  a 
visible  communication  between  himself  and  the  person  upon  whom  the 
miracle  was  to  be  wrought.  For  the  same  rea^n  he  made  use  of  audi¬ 
ble  expressions  serving  to  identify  himself  as  the  performer.  These 
expressions,  in  the  present  case,  have  been  preserved  by  Mark  (5.  41), 
not  only  in  a  Greek  translation,  but  in  their  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  form, 
as  originally  uttered.  Matthew,  omitting  all  detail,  records,  in  the  most 
laconic  manner,  the  result,  to  wit,  that  the  maid  arose,  or  retaining  the 
exact  form  of  the  Greek,  was  raised,  not  only  from  her  bed,  but  from  a 
state  of  death.  (See  above,  on  vs.  5.  6.  7.  19.) 

26.  And  the  fame  thereof  went  abroad  into  all  that 
land. 

The  first  words  are  more  exactly  rendered  in  the  margin  of  the  Eng¬ 
lish  Bible,  this  fame,  or  report  the  Greek  word  being  that  from  which 
the  English  fame  is  derived  through  the  Latin,  but  originally  meaning 
simply  word  or  saying,  from  the  verb  to  say.  It  is  used  in  a  general  sense 
for  good  or  bad  report,  and  not  restricted  to  the  former  as  onv  fame  is 
excepting  in  the  combinations  common  fame  and  ill  fame.  Went  abroad, 
went  out.  not  only  from  the  house,  but  from  the  city.  That  land,  or 
country,  an  indefinite  expression,  w’hich  we  neither  need  nor  can  define 
by  geographical  specifications. 

27.  And  when  Jesus  departed  thence,  two  blind  men 
followed  him,  crying,  and  saying,  (Thou)  Son  of  David, 
have  mercy  on  us. 

Matthew  here  subjoins  two  miracles  as  following  immediately  the 
restoration  of  the  ruler’s  daughter,  without  any  contradiction  from  the 
I  other  gospels,  which  omit  them  altogether.  This  freedom  of  insertion 
and  omission  shows  that  the  evangelists,  though  working  up  the  same 
material,  do  it  not  as  abridgers  or  transcribers  of  each  other,  but  as  in¬ 
dependent  and  inspired  historians.  The  original  construction  is  like 
that  in  8,  23.  28,  beginning  with  a  dative  as  the  object  of  the  verb,  but 
followed  by  a  pleonastic  repetition  of  the  pronoun,  Jesus  passing  thence 
two  blind  men  followed  him.  The  first  verb  is  the  same  as  that  in  v. 
9,  from  its  etymology  implying  that  he  did  not  go  alone  but  as  the 
leader  of  others.  (Compare  another  compound  of  the  same  verb  in  4, 

'  23  above  and  v.  35  below.)  The  mention  of  two  blind  men  has  been 


270 


MATTHEW  9,27.28.29. 

added  to  the  other  cases  of  like  nature  (e^g.  8,  28  above)  in  proof  of 
Matthew’s  disposition  to  see  double,  or  his  imaginative  fondness  for  the 
number  two.  But  as  the  fact  itself  is  altogether  natural,  to  wit,  that 
sufierers,  and  more  particularly  blind  men,  should  resort  to  Christ  in 
pairs,  the  circumstance  in  question  only  shows  that  something  in  his 
habits  or  his  turn  of  mind  led  Matthew  to  observe  and  remember  the 
precise  number,  even  when  without  historical  importance  and  perhaps 
unnoticed  by  others.  Crying  and  saying^  may  either  mean  saying  with 
a  loiidj  voice,  by  the  figure  which  the  Greek  grammarians  called  hendi- 
adys  ;  or  the  first  word  may  denote  an  inarticulate  cry  of  lamentation 
or  complaint  distinct  from  any  verbal  utterance.  (See  above,  on  8, 
29.)  Have  mercy,  pity,  show  compassion,  a  verb  corresponding  to 
the  noun  in  v.  13  above,  and  the  adjective  in  5,  7,  where  the  verb  itself 
appears  in  a  passive  form.  Con  of  David,  his  descendant  and  succes¬ 
sor  on  the  throne  of  Israel,  a  remarkable  acknowledgment  of  his  Mes- 
siahship,  according  to  our  Lord’s  own  exposition  of  the  110th  Psalm. 
(See  below,  on  22,  41-45.)  The  title  had  been  previously  applied  by 
the  angel  of  the  Lord  to  Joseph  (see  above,  on  1,  20),  through  whom, 
as  the  husband  of  Christ’s  mother,  he  derived  a  legal  right  to  the  suc¬ 
cession,  as  he  did  a  natural  or  real  one  from  his  mother  herself.  (See 
above,  on  1, 1.  16.) 

28.  And  wlien  lie  was  come  into  the  house,  the  blind 
men  came  to  him  :  and  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  Believe 
ye  that  I  am  able  to  do  this  ?  They  said  unto  him.  Yea, 
Lord. 

They  not  only  followed  him  along  the  way  but  into  the  house  to 
which  he  was  going;  whether  that  of  Peter,  or  some  other,  in  Capernaum 
or  elsewhere,  cannot  be  determined  and  is  wholly  unimportant.  We 
have  here  another  instance  of  the  same  pleonastic  syntax,  which  is  one 
of  Matthew’s  chief  peculiarities  of  language.  To  Qiim)  going  into  the 
house  came  to  him  the  hlind  men.  How  is  it  that  this  form  of  speech 
is  found  in  Matthew  onljq  if  inspiration  did  not  leave  the  peculiar  habits 
of  the  sacred  writers  undisturbed,  but  used  them  all  as  mere  machines 
and  vehicles  of  one  unvaried  revelation  ?  This  miracle  is  probably  re¬ 
corded  to  exemplify  the  way  in  which  our  Lord  sometimes  drew  forth 
the  profession  of  that  faith  which  he  prescribed  as  a  prerequisite  of 
healing.  We  thus  learn  w’hat  was  really  the  object  of  that  faith,  to 
wit,  his  power  or  ability  to  work  the  wonder.  (See  above,  on  v.  22.) 
Yea,  yes,  the  usual  affirmative  in  Greek,  though  similar  in  form  to  one 
of  our  negative  particles  {nay).  Craumer  avoids  the  use  of  it  by  a  rep¬ 
etition  of  the  verb  {Lord,  we  believe). 

29.  Then  toucbed  be  tbeir  eyes,  saying.  According  to 
your  faith,  be  it  unto  you. 

Then  has  here  the  sense  of  afterwards,  or  in  the  next  place,  i.  e. 


V 


271 


MATTHEW  9,29.30.31. 

after  he  had  drawn  forth  this  profession  of  the  blind.  Touched  their 
eyes,  as  the  parts  immediately  affected,  so  as  to  connect  the  cure  still 
more  distinctly  with  the  person  of  the  healed.  According  to^  not  on 
account  of,  as  a  meritorious  ground,  but  in  proportion  and  analogy  to 
their  belief,  which  he  perceived  to  be  sincere.  For  a  different  expres¬ 
sion  of  the  same  idea  in  the  case  of  the  centurion,  see  above,  on  8, 13. 
Be  it,  let  it  happen,  come  to  pass,  precisely  the  same  form  that  is  em¬ 
ployed  in  the  third  petition  of  the  Lord’s  Prayer.  (See  above,  on  6, 
10.) 


30.  And  their  eyes  were  opened  ;  and  Jesus  straitly 
charged  them,  saying,  See  (that)  no  man  know  (it). 

The  restoration  of  sight  is  described  in  a  natural  but  figurative 
form,  their  eyes  were  opened,  the  inaction  of  the  organ  being  conceived 
of  as  a  shutting  of  the  eye,  not  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  covering  the 
pupil  with  the  e3^elid,  but  in  that  of  being  closed  to  the  per¬ 
ception  of  external  objects.  Straitly  (i.  e.  strictly)  charged,  in 
the  original  a  Ileilenistic  verb  denoting  strong  emotion,  and  par¬ 
ticularly  grief  or  indignation,  as  in  Mark  14,  5.  John  11,  33. 
38.  Here  (and  in  Mark  1,  43)  it  can  only  mean  a  threatening 
in  case  of  disobedience,  charging  them  on  pain  of  his  severe  dis¬ 
pleasure  and  disapprobation.  The  Vulgate  and  its  cop3nsts  simply 
translated  it  threatened  {comminatus  est).  The  form  of  the  injunction 
is  the  same  with  that  in  8,  4,  but  with  the  second  verb  in  the  third 
person.  See  (i.  e.  see  to  it,,  take  care,  be  sure)  that  no  man  (more 
correctly,  no  one)  Tcnoio  {it,  or  of  it,  as  the  older  English  versions  have 
it). 


31.  But  they,  when  they  were  departed,  spread  abroad 
his  fame  in  all  that  country. 

The  result  was  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  the  leper,  as  described  by 
Mark  (1,  45),  though  not  by  Matthew  (8, 4).  Such  prohibitions  were 
uttered  by  the  Saviour,  not  in  conformity  to  any  fixed  rule,  but  for  the 
general  purpose  of  preventing  the  precipitate  occurrence  of  events  which 
according  to  his  plan  were  to  be  gradually  brought  about.  Hence  we 
find  him  varying  his  practice  as  the  circumstances  of  the  cases  varied, 
with  the  same  independent  and  original  authority  which  marked  his 
public  teaching.  (See  above,  on  7,  29.)  The  evangelists  describe  him 
as  exercising  a  divine  discretion,  which  in  every  case  determined  wheth¬ 
er  the  publication  of  his  miracles  required  to  be  stimulated  or  re¬ 
tarded,  though  the  grounds  of  the  distinction  ma}’’  be  now,  and  may 
have  been  at  first,  inscrutable  to  human  wisdom.  By  this  discretion 
the  excessive  zeal  of  those  who  witnessed  his  extraordinary  works  was 
checked  and  chastened,  although  not  entirely  suppressed.  It  may 
have  been  particularly  needed  in  those  cases  where  a  miracle  was 
wrought  among  a  people  less  familiar  with  such  wonders,  and  the  more 


272 


MATTHEW  9,31.32.33. 


prone  therefore  to  extravagant  activity  in  spreading  them  abroad.  All 
that  country  differs  only  in  case  from  the  phrase  translated  all  that 
land  inv.  26,  and  has  the  same  indefinite  meaning.* 

32.  As  they  went  out,  behold,  they  brought  to  him  a 
dumb  man  possessed  with  a  devil. 

Matthew  adds  another  miracle  immediately  ensuing,  as  they  {the 
lolind  men)  icent  out,  literally,  they  going  out  or  being  in  the  act  of  do- 
ino;  so.  Behold  invites  attention  to  this  second  case  as  not  to  be  con- 
founded  with  the  first,  nor  indeed  with  another  upon  record,  that  in 
Mark  7, 32-35  being  obviously  different  both  in  time  and  circum¬ 
stances.  That  was  a  case  of  deafness  and  difficult  articulation  without 
any  intimation  of  a  preternatural  cause.  This  was  a  case  of  demoniacal 
possession  rendering  the  victim  dumb.  The  other  cases  which  most 
nearly  resemble  it  are  separatel}^  given  by  Matthew  on  account  of  other 
circumstances  which  distinguished  them.  (See  below,  on  12,  22.  17, 
14.)  The  wmrd  translated  duml)  is  elsewdiere  correctly  rendered  deaf 
(see  below  on  11,  5),  and  the  classical  usage  is  the  same,  w'hich  may 
be  readily  explained  by  the  mutual  relation  of  these  two  affections 
w'hen  congenital.  In  this  case  the  sense  of  dumbness  is  required  by 
the  description  of  the  cure  (in  v.  33).  They  brought,,  indefinitely,  as 
in  V.  2.  A  man  dumb  {and)  demonized,  implying  that  the  one  state 
was  occasioned  by  the  other.  For  the  nature  of  the  latter,  see  above, 
on  4,24.  8,16.  28.  33. 

33.  And  when  the  devil  was  cast  out,  the  dumb 
spake  :  and  the  multitudes  marvelled,  saying.  It  was  ^ 
never  so  seen  in  Israel. 

The  demon  having  been  cast  out,^  the  dumb  {man)  talked,^  is  not  a  se¬ 
quence  in  time  merely  (w-hen  it  was  cast  out),  but  in  causation.  As  the 
demon  was  the  cause  of  the  man’s  dumbness,  his  expulsion  w^as  the  cause 
of  his  recovering  his  speech.  The  crowds  wondered.,  as  at  a  new  phase 
or  exhibition  of  our  Lord’s  extraordinary  power.  Some  explain  the 
next  clause  to  mean,  never  did  he  so  appear.,  i.  e.  so  great,  so  glorious ; 
but  this  would  seem  to  be  forbidden  by  the  added  words,  in  Israel., 
which  are  then  almost  unmeaning  and  superfluous.  The  true  con¬ 
struction  is  no  doubt  the  common  one,  which  makes  the  verb  indefinite, 
if  not  impersonal.  It  never  loas  so  seen,  or  so  appeared,  i.  e.  there  never 
was  such  a  sight  or  spectacle  before,  in  Israel,  among  the  chosen  peo¬ 
ple,  or  in  their  history,  their  memory  as  a  nation.  This  does  not  re¬ 
fer  to  the  intrinsic  greatness  of  the  miracle,  as  compared  wdth  others, 
either  in  reference  to  the  power  displa3^ed  or  the  effect  produced,  but 
to  its  peculiarity  in  kind,  arising  from  the  complication  of  two  such  af¬ 
fections,  which  was  probably  the  reason  of  it*  being  here  recorded. 

*  Wiclif ’s  singular  translation  of  the  last  verb  {and  defamed  him)  is  only  too 
exact  a  copy  of  the  Vulgate  {diffamaverunt),  which  is  itself  too  close  an  adher¬ 
ence  to  the  form  of  the  original  {die^hf^io-av),  though  justified  by  Latin  usage. 


MATTHEW  9,34.35. 


273 


34.  But  tlie  Pharisees  said^  He  casteth  out  devils^ 
through  the  prince  of  the  devils. 

Another  reason  for  recording  this  occurrence  may  have  been,  that 
it  afforded  an  occasion  for  theiirst  utterance  of  a  blasphemous  sugges¬ 
tion  with  respect  to  our  Lord’s  miracles,  which  was  afterwards  re¬ 
peated  still  more  boldly,  and  led  to  a  remarkable  discourse  recorded  at 
full  length  below  (12,  22-37)?  Being  here  only  mentioned,  as  it  were, 
in  passing,  'the  minute  explanation  of  its  terras  may  be  reserved  until 
we  reach  the  passage  just  referred  to.  It  will  here  be  sufficient  to  ob¬ 
serve  that  the  Pharisees  are  not  the  same,  as  some  have  represented,  in 
all  cases,  but  such  representatives  of  that  great  party  as  might  happen 
to  be  present  on  different  occasions.  This  is  the  less  improbable  as  the 
name  included  the  great  body  of  the  unbelieving  Jews.  (See  above,  on 
vs.  11.  14.  and  on  3,  7.  5,  20.)  Through  the  prince  of  the  devils^  lit¬ 
erally,  in  the  archon  (chief  or  leader)  of  the  demons  (see  above,  on  v. 
18),  i.  e.  in  intimate  conjunction  with  him  and  reliance  on  him.  (Tyn- 
dale:  hy  the  power  of  the  chief  devil.) 

35.  And  Jesus  went  about  all  the  cities  and  villages, 
teaching  in  their  synagogues,  and  preaching  the  gospel 
of  the  kingdom,  and  healing  every  sickness,  and  every  dis¬ 
ease  among  the  people. 

This  verse  is  almost  perfectly  identical  in  form,  and  altogether  so 
in  sense,  with  4,  23.  The  name  Jesus  there  stands  later  in  the  sen¬ 
tence,  and  is  wholly  omitted  bj?’  the  Codex  Vaticanus  and  the  latest 
critics,  as  they  also  do  the  last  words  of  the  sentence,  in  (among)  the 
people.  For  all  the  cities  and  villages  we  there  have  the  whole  (of) 
Galilee.,  a  difference  which  merely  serves  to  show  what  cities  and  vil¬ 
lages  (or  towns  of  every  size)  are  here  intended.  With  these  excep¬ 
tions,  the  two  verses  are  identical,  and  it  becomes  an  interesting  ques¬ 
tion,  how  are  they  related  to  each  other  in  the  structure  of  the  history? 
One  view  of  this  relation,  and  perhaps  the  one  prevailing  among  read¬ 
ers  and  interpreters,  is  that  which  makes  the  passages  descriptive  of 
two  successive  circuits  made  by  Christ  through  Galilee,  being  the  first 
and  third  in  order,  while  the  second  is  exclusively  preserved  by  Luke 
I  (8,  1-3).  That  Matthew,  if  he  had  described  two,  would  most  proba¬ 
bly  have  introduced  the  third,  although  it  cannot  of  itself  refute  this 
doctrine,  certainly  creates  a  strong  presumption  to  its  disadvantage,  as 
the  leaving  out  of  one  whole  journey  through  the  country  is  exceed- 
ingl}^  improbable.  And  this  presumption  is  strengthened  by  the  use 
of  the  imperfect  tense  (irepujyei^)  and  not  the  aorist,  suggesting  the  idea 
of  continued  action,  not  on  any  one  occasion,  but  in  general.  This  has 
led  us  to  conclude  already  (see  above,  p.  98.)  that  4,  23  is  not  an  ac¬ 
count  of  one  particular  mission,  but  a  general  description  of  our  Lord’s 
itinerant  ministr}’’,  with  its  two  great  functions,  working  miracles 
and  teaching.  But  if  this  be  so,  it  seems  to  follow  that  the  verse 

12^- 


274 


MATTHEW  9,35.36. 


before  us,  with  its  marked  similarity  of  form  and  substance,  is  a 
similar  description  of  his  ministry  in  general,  and  not  that  of  a  sec¬ 
ond  or  third  circuit  in  particular.  The  question  why  this  general  de¬ 
scription  should  be  thus  repeated  almost  totidem  verMs  may  be  readily 
answered,  and  the  answer  furnishes  a  key  to  the  whole  structure  of 
this  first  great  division  of  the  history.  The  answer  is,  that  Matthew, 
haying  executed  his  design  of  showing  by  examples  how  the  Saviour 
taught  and  wrought  in  his  great  mission,  now  returns  to  the  point 
from  which  he  started  in  beginning  this  exemplification,  and  resumes 
the  thread  there  dropped  or  broken  by  repeating  his  summary  descrip¬ 
tion  of  the  ministry  which  he  has  since  been  painting  in  detail.  This 
view  of  the  connection  is  not  only  recommended  by  grammatical  con¬ 
siderations,  such  as  the  imperfect  tense  and  participles  following  in 
either  case,  but  also  by  the  clear  light  which  it  throws  upon  the  struc¬ 
ture  of  the  book  and  the  progress  of  the  history.  Even  a  mere  hy¬ 
pothesis,  which  thus  converts  an  incoherent  series  of  details  into  a 
systematic  well-compacted  whole,  can  scarcely  be  denied  as  fanciful. 
According  to  this  theory,  the  meaning  of  the  verse  before  us  is,  ‘  and 
thus,  or  so  it  was,  as  I  before  said,  that  Jesus  went  about,’  &c. 

36.  But  wlien  lie  saw  the  multitudes,  he  was  moved 
with  compassion  on  them,  because  they  fainted,  and 
ivere  scattered  abroad,  as  sheep  having  no  shepherd. 

A  plausible  objection  to  the  view  just  taken  of  the  preceding  verse 
may  seem  to  be  presented  by  its  close  connection  with  the  one  before 
us,  which  can  scarcely  mean  that  he  was  always  thus  affected,  and 
was  always  saying  what  is  quoted  in  the  next  verse.  This  construc¬ 
tion  is  indeed  forbidden  by  the  aorist  {eanXayxvlcr'^r])  in  one  case  and 
the  present  (Xeyet)  in  the  other.  But  this  change  of  tense,  always 
significant  in  Greek,  affords  the  key  to  the  whole  difficulty,  showing 
as  it  does  that  after  speaking  of  the  whole  course  of  Christ’s  ministry, 
and  using  for  that  purpose  the  imperfect  tense  with  its  dependent 
participles,  Matthew  now  proceeds,  by  means  of  the  aorist  and  present, 
to  describe  what  took  place  upon  one  particular  occasion.  ‘  Thus  did 
Jesus  go  about  all  Galilee,  teaching  and  healing,  and  at  one  time  he 
was  moved  with  compassion,’  &c.  This  does  not  imply  that  he  was 
usually  free  from  this  affection,  but  singles  out  a  special  instance  for 
the  purpose  of  recording  what  he  said  to  his  disciples.  Whe7i  he  saic, 
jorecisely  the  same  words  employed  in  5,  1.  and  there  more  simply  and 
exactly  rendered  seeing.  The  multitudes.^  the  crowds,  the  promiscuous 
collections  of  the  people  from  all  quarters  to  attend  his  ministry,  to 
hear  his  teachings,  and  to  see  his  miracles.  The  particular  point  of 
time  may  be  the  same  as  that  in  5,  1.  when  the  concourse  had  attained 
its  height,  and  thus  occasioned  the  original  delivery  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount.  The  heart,  though  properly  the  name  of  a  bodily  organ, 
is  used  in  various  languages  to  signify  the  seat  of  the  affections,  and 
sometimes  the  affections  themselves.  But  the  Greeks  extended  this 
figurative  usage  to  all  the  higher  or  thoracic  viscera,  the  liver,  lungs, 


MATTHEW  9,36.37. 


275 


&c.,  as  distinguished  from  the  lower  or  abdominal  viscera,  the  former 
being  also  reckoned  edible,  the  latter  not.  For  want  of  a  distinctive 
term,  the  English  version  uses  the  word  howels^  even  where  the  Greek 
noun  (o-TrXdyxm)  has  its  figurative  sense  of  feeling,  and  especially 
compassion.  From  this  sense  of  the  noun,  later  and  Hellenistic  usage 
formed  a  verb  {a-TrXayxvlCojxai)  unknown  to  the  Greek  classics,  and  de¬ 
noting,  first  the  yearning  of  the  bowels,  or  rather  the  commotion  of 
the  upper  viscera,  and  then  the  emotion  of  pity  or  compassion.  It 
is  the  passive  participle  of  this  verb  that  is  here  correctly  paraphrased, 
moved  with  compassion.  What  excited  his  divine  and  human  53^1- 
pathy  was  not  of  course  their  numbers  or  their  physical  condition  but 
their  spiritual  destitution.  The  figures  of  a  shepherd  and  a  flock  to 
denote  the  mutual  relation  of  religious  guides  and  those  who  follow 
them  are  frequent  in  the  Scriptures  and  too  natural  to  need  elucida¬ 
tion.  On  the  other  hand,  the  converse  of  this  figure,  or  a  flock  with¬ 
out  a  shepherd,  is  the  most  affecting  that  can  be  emplo3^ed  to  represent 
the  want  of  nurture,  guidance  and  protection,  the  extreme  of  weakness, 
helplessness,  and  imminent  exposure  both  to  force  and  fraud,  dis¬ 
persion  and  destruction.  Fainted^  in  the  margin,  ivere  tired  and 
lay  down.  Both  words  in  Greek  are  passive  participles,  the  first, 
according  to  the  common  text  (e/cXeAvi^eVoi),  meaning  loosened  out^ 
and  then  relaxed,  exhausted  (as  in  15,  32,  compare  the  figura¬ 
tive  use  in  Heb.  12,  3.  5.  Gal.  6,  9),  but  according  to  the  reading  now 
preferred  (eV/cuX/ieVoi),  vexed,  troubled,  harassed  (as  in  Mark  5,  35. 
Luke  7,  6.  8,  49).  The  other  literally  means  thrown,  cast,  with  the 
accessor}’’  ideas  of  being  cast  down,  cast  out,  or  cast  about  (scatter¬ 
ed).  The  two  together  are  intended  to  express  the  wmetched  state 
of  sheep  without  a  shepherd.  At  a  later  period,  under  similar  im¬ 
pressions  made  by  a  great  representative  multitude,  our  Lord  began 
immediately  to  teach  them  (Mark  6,  34),  showing  what  he  reckoned 
their  most  urgent  want,  and  also  that  although  it  was  his  miracles  of 
healing  that  had  prompted  them  to  follow  him  (J ohn  G,  2),  they  were 
not  without  some  just  view  of  the  intimate  relations  of  his  wonders  to 
his  doctrines,  or  at  least  not  unwilling  to  receive  instruction  from  the 
same  lips  which  commanded  with  authority  the  most  malignant  de¬ 
mons  and  diseases.  , 

37.  Then  saitli  he  unto  his  disciples,  The  harvest  truly 
(is)  plenteous,  hut  the  labourers  (are)  few. 

Then,  at  that  time,  upon  that  particular  occasion,  when  he  thus 
felt  particularly  moved  with  compassion,  as  described  in  the  preceding 
verse.  Saith  he,  he  says,  the  graphic  present,  calling  up  the  scene  as 
actually  passing,  but  referring  to  the  same  time  as  the  aorist  in  v.  36, 
and  not  to  the  whole  period  embraced  in  the  imperfect  tense  of  v.  35. 
His  disciples,  those  acknowledging  him  as  a  teacher,  or  perhaps  more 
definitely,  those  who  now  attended  him  from  place  to  place.  (See 
above,  on  5,1.  8,21.  23,25.  9,10.  11.  14.  19).  Our  Lord’s  authority 
and  independence  as  a  teacher,  are  evinced  by  his  mastery  of  figura- 


276 


MATTHEW  9,37.38. 


tive  language  and  his  freedom  from  rhetorical  preciseness  as  to  change 
and  mixture  in  his  illustrations.  What  had  just  been  represented  as 
a  flock  of  sheep  without  a  shepherd,  is  now  set  before  us  as  a  harvest 
perishing  for  want  of  reapers.  The  previous  context  leaves  no  doubt 
that  these  expressions  are  to  be  applied,  like  those  before  them,  to  the 
crowds  or  multitudes  of  people  who  were  dying  without  faithful 
spiritual  guides  and  comforters.  The  specific  thoughts  suggested  by 
the  image  of  a  harvest,  as  distinct  from  that  of  sheep  without  a  shep¬ 
herd,  are  those  of  [value],  great  abundance,  waste,  and  loss,  unless 
prevented  by  a  timely  ingathering  to  a  place  of  safety.  (See  below, 
on  13,  30,  and  compare  1  Cor.  3,  9.)  The  sentence  has  the  balanced 
form  so  common  in  Greek  prose,  the  antithesis  being  marked  by  the 
corresponding  particles,  indeed  and  hut  (3e).  The  first  expresses 
a  concession  or  admission,  ‘it  is  true,  the  harvest  is  abundant,  but  of 
what  avail  is  that,  if  there  are  not  enough  to  reap  it  1  ’  The  few 
labourers  must  not  be  understood  too  strictly  as  referring  to  our  Lord 
and  his  immediate  followers,  though  they  are  certainly  included  and 
particularly  meant,  but  under  a  description  of  much  wider  application, 
and  denoting  all  who  could  be  figuratively  represented  as  engaged  in 
watching  and  securing  the  Lord’s  spiritual  harvest. 

38.  Pray  ye  therefore  the  Lord  of  the  harvest^  that 
he  will  send  forth  labourers  into  his  harvest. 

This  verse  prescribes  the  remedy  or  cure  of  the  great  evil  v/hich 
had  moved  our  Lord’s  compassion.  There  must  be  more  labour 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  harvest,  i.  e.  more  extensive  human  agencies 
employed  in  saving  those  who  were  now  perishing,  not  among  the 
heathen,  but  the  Jews  themselves,  the  chosen  people,  the  theocracy,  the 
church  of  God.  This  additional  labour  must  be  looked  for  not  from 
strangers  or  intruders,  but  from  the  Lord  of  the  harvest^  its  proprietor, 
its  owner,  him  to  whom  it  rightfully  belongs  and  who  is  able  to  control 
it  at  its  pleasure.  This  description,  although  really  and  specially  appro¬ 
priate  to  Christ  himself,  was  not  in  the  first  instance  so  understood,  or 
meant  to  be  so  understood  by  his  disciples.  It  was  a  part  of  his  humilia¬ 
tion,  that  many  things,  which  he  might  have  said  directly  of  himself,  he 
said  as  of  another,  or  as  here  of  God  without  respect  to  his  own  God¬ 
head.  The  assistance  of  this  great  Proprietor  could  only  be  obtained  by 
prayer,  the  warrant  and  encouragement  for  which  had  been  so  powerfully 
set  forth  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (7,  7-11).  The  verb  here  used 
originally  means  to  needoT  want ;  and  then,  like  the  latter  verb  in  Eng¬ 
lish,  to  feel  the  necessity,  to  desire^  and  lastly,  by  a  no  less  natural  transi¬ 
tion,  to  express  that  feeling  by  request,  to  2oray^  which  is  its  only  use  in 
the  New  Testament,  where  it  is  confined,  with  this  exception,  to  the  dia¬ 
lect  of  Paul  and  Luke.  The  last  clause  gives  the  subject  or  the  bur¬ 
den  of  the  prayer  enjoined.  Send  fort\  is  in  Greek  much  stronger, 
meaning  literally  cast  (or  drire)  out^  as  in  v.  25,  and  frequently  applied 
to  the  expulsion  of  intrusive  demons,  W'hereas  here  it  signifies  an 
earnest,  prompt,  authoritative  mission  of  new  labourers,  by  the  great 


277 


MATTHEW  10,  1. 

proprietor  or  owner,  into  his  own  harvest^  which  as  such  may  claim  to 
be  protected  and  provided  for.  Wiclif’s  translation  of  these  two  verses 
is  an  interesting  specimen  of  English.  Soothly  (truly)  there  is 
much  ripe  corn  but  few  workmen  :  therefore  pray  ye  the  Lord  of  the 
ripe  corn,  that  he  send  workmen  into  his  ripe  corn.” 


CHAPTEB  X. 

Having  described  our  Lord’s  ministry  in  general  terms  (iv,  23-25),  and 
then  exemplified  its  two  great  functions  by  select  examples  of  his 
teaching  (v-vii)  and  his  miracles  (viii-ix),  the  evangelist  now  prose¬ 
cutes  his  task  by  recording  the  organization  of  the  twelve  apostles,  and 
the  instructions  under  which  they  acted  (x).  We  have  first  their 
general  commission  (1)  and  their  names  (2-4)  ;  then  particular  direc¬ 
tions  as  to  their  immediate  mission  (5-15)  ;  and  then  a  premonition  of 
the  treatment  which  awaited  them  thereafter,  with  appropriate  instruc¬ 
tions  and  encouragements  (16-42).  The  last  and  largest  portion  of 
the  chapter  is  peculiar  to  this  gospel;  the  others  are  found  both  in 
Mark  (vi)  and  Luke  (ix).  The  position  of  this  narrative  is  rather 
^  historical  than  chronological,  that  is  to  say,  the  writer’s  purpose  is  not 
simply  to  record  certain  incidents  or  acts  in  the  order  of  their  actual 
occurrence,  but  to  present  another  striking  feature  in  the  ministry  of 
Christ,  to  wit,  the  steps  which  he  took  towards  the  re-organization  of 
the  church,  though  not  to  be  immediately  accomplished  by  himself  on 
earth  for  reasons  which  have  been  already  given.  (See  above,  p.  93.) 
These  preparatory  steps  were  first,  the  promulgation  of  the  principles, 
on  which  his  kingdom  was  to  be  established  and  administered  ;  and 
secondly,  the  preparation  of  the  men  by  whom  it  should  be  formally 
erected ;  which  last  is  the  subject  of  this  chapter. 

1.  And  wlien  he  had  called  unto  (him)  his  twelve 
disciples,  he  gave  them  power  (against)  unclean  spirits, 
to  cast  them  out,  and  to  heal  all  manner  of  sickness  and 
all  manner  of  disease. 

Besides  continuing  his  own  itinerant  ministry,  our  Lord  now  takes 
another  step  of  great  importance,  by  actually  sending  out  the  twelve 
whom  he  had  previously  chosen  for  the  twofold  purpose  of  being  with 
him  as  disciples  and  going  forth  from  him  as  apostles  (4,  18.  Mark  3,  14). 
It  should  be  observed,  however,  that  the  mission  here  recorded 
was  not  the  permanent  and  proper  apostolic  work,  for  which  they 
were  not  qualified  until  the  day  of  Pentecost  (Luke  24.  49.  Acts  1, 
41),  but  a  temporary  and  preliminary  mission,  Jto  diffuse  still  more 


278 


m 


MATTHEW  10,1. 

extensively  the  news  of  the  Messiah’s  advent  and  the  doctrine  of  his 
kingdom,  attested  by  the  same  credentials  which  he  bore  himself. 
Power^  i.  e.  derivative  or  delegated  power,  authority^  conferred  by  a 
superior,  not  to  be  employed  promiscuously  or  at  random,  but  so  as  to 
promote  the  end  for  w^hich  it  was  bestowed.  PoiDer  of  unclean  spirits^ 
i.  e.  relating  to  them,  and  by  necessary  implication,  over  them,  which 
is  not  expressed,  however,  but  suggested  by  the  context.  Unclean  is 
added  as  a  qualifying  term,  because  the  noun  includes  all  spirits,  good 
and  evil,  whereas  they  were  to  have  power  only  over  fallen  angels. 
Here,  as  elsewhere,  the  evangelists  give  special  prominence  to  such  dis¬ 
possessions  as  the  most  extraordinary  miracles  of  healing,  and  as  such 
representing  all  the  rest  which  were  equally  included  in  this  apostolical 
commission,  as  expressed  in  the  other  clause.  To  cast^  or  more  exactly, 
so  as  to  cast,  defining  the  indefinite  expression,  poioer  over  unclean 
spirits.  It  formed,  as  we  have  seen,  no  part  of  our  Lord’s  personal 
errand  upon  earth  to  reorganize  the  Church,  as  this  change  was  to  rest 
upon  his  own  atoning  death  as  its  foundation.  For  the  same  reason, 
he  did  not  develop  the  whole  system  of  Christian  doctrine,  but  left 
both  these  tasks  to  be  accomplished  after  his  departure,  yet  preparing 
the  way  for  both,  by  teaching  the  true  nature  of  his  kingdom,  and  by 
training  those  who  should  complete  the  Church,  both  as  to  its  orgam 
ization  and  its  creed.  This  preparatory  process  was  a  very  gradual 
one,  as  we  learn  from  the  occasional  and  incidental  statements  of  the 
history,  which  nowhere  gives  us  a  connected  and  complete  account  of 
it.  The  first  step  which  we  can  trace  is  his  reception  of  two  of  John’s 
disciples,  first  as  guests  or  visitors,  and  then  no  doubt  as  friends  and 
pupils,  but  as  yet  without  requiring  their  continual  attendance  on  his 
person  (see  John  1,  35-40).  One  of  these  two  we  know  to  have  been 
Andrew  (ib.  41),  and  the  other  is  commonly  believed  to  have  been 
John  the  son  of  Zebedee,  who  never  names  himself  in  his  own  gospel. 
In  pursuance  of  the  Saviour’s  plan,  each  of  these  two  introduced  a 
brother  (Simon  and  James).  A  fifth,  directly  called  by  Christ  him¬ 
self,  was  Philip  (John  1,  44),  who  in  his  turn  brought  Nathanael, 
recognized  by  Jesus  as  an  Israelite  indeed,  in  whom  there  was  no 
guile  (John  1,  48),  that  is  to  say,  a  genuine,  sincere  adherent  of  the 
old  theocracy,  according  to  its  true  design  and  import  as  a  preparation 
for  Messiah’s  reign,  and  therefore  ready  to  acknowledge  him  as  soon 
as  he  should  give  some  proof  of  his  Messiahship  (John  1,  49.  50).  A 
seventh,  called  immediately  by  Christ  himself,  was  Levi  or  Matthew 
(see  above,  on  9,  9).  As  the  history  of  all  these  calls  is  only  inciden¬ 
tal,  we  may  argue  by  analogy  from  one  to  the  other,  and  as  those  first 
mentioned  seem  to  have  continued  in  their  former  occupations  some 
time  after  their  first  introduction  to  their  Master,  it  is  not  unlikely 
that  the  same  happened  in  the  other  cases,  though  the  writer’s  plan  did 
not  require  it  to  be  expressly  mentioned.  We  have  then  two  succes¬ 
sive  and  distinct  steps  in  the  process  of  preparing  men  to  organize  the 
Church ;  first  the  personal  vocation  of  at  least  seven  persons  into 
Christ’s  society,  as  friends  and  pupils;  then  a  second  call  to  constant 
personal  attendance.  •  The  third  step  is  that  recorded  here,  to  wit,  the 


279 


MATTHEW  10,1.2. 

more  formal  designation  of  twelve  persons  to  the  Apostolic  ofiSce.  As 
we  know  that  at  least  half  of  these  had  been  previously  called,  and  at 
least  one  fourth  of  them  at  two  distinct  times,  it  is  highly  probable 
that  a  like  intimation  had  been  given  to  the  remaining  six  or  seven. 
It  would  then  be  true  of  all,  as  it  certainly  is  of  those  referred  to,  that 
the  choice  or  calling  here  described  did  not  take  them  by  surprise,  but 
merely  carried  out  a  purpose  previously  made  known  to  them.  Mark 
connects  this  designation  of  the  twelve  with  the  immense  concourse 
just  described,  but  only  by  juxtaposition,  without  any  express  specifi¬ 
cation  of  time.  Luke  (6,  12)  does  indicate  the  time,  but  very  vaguely 
(m  these  days'),  and  Matthew  omits  all  mention  of  the  twelve  until  he 
comes  to  their  actual  entrance  on  their  work,  which  is  a  fourth  stage 
in  this  gradual  preparatory  process.  What  is  here  described  is  neither 
the  original  vocation  of  the  individual  Apostles,  nor  their  final  going 
forth  in  that  capacity,  but  the  intermediate  step  of  publicly  embodying 
or  organizing  those  who  had  been  previously  chosen  one  by  one,  or 
two  by  two,  that  they  might  now,  as  a  collective  body,  be  prepared 
for  active  service.  This  view  of  the  matter  is  entirely  consistent  with 
Luke’s  statement  that  he  chose  them  now  (Luke  6,  13),  for  this  was 
not  an  act  that  could  not  be  repeated,  and  with  Mark’s  (3,  13),  that 
he  called  to  him  whom  he  would,  which  only  excludes  self-choice  and 
popular  election,  but  not  a  previous  designation  on  his  own  part. 


2.  Now  the  names  of  the  twelve  apostles  are  these  ; 
The  firsts  Simon,  who  is  called  Peter,  and  Andrew  his 
brother  ;  James  (the  son)  of  Zebedee,  and  John  his 
brother ; 

We  have  four  independent  lists  of  the  Apostles  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  differing  chiefly  in  the  order  of  the  names,  but  also  as  to  several 
of  the  names  themselves.  One  of  these  catalogues  is  given  here  by 
Matthew,one  by  Mark  (3, 16-19),  and  the  remaining  two  by  Luke  (6, 14- 
16.  Acts  1,  13).  Bengel  was  probably  the  first  to  observe  that  although 
the  arrangement  of  the  names  is  so  unlike  in  these  four  documents, 
the  variation  is  confined  to  certain  limits,  as  the  twelve  may  be  divided 
into  three  quaternions,  which  are  never  interchanged,  and  the  leading 
names  of  which  are  the  same  in  all.  Thus  Peter  is  invariably  the 
first,  Philip  the  fifth,  James  the  ninth,  and  Iscariot  the  last,  except  in 
Acts,  where  his  name  is  omitted  on  account  of  his  apostasy  and  death. 
Simon  called  or  surnamed  Peter.  We  learn  from  John  (1,  43),  that 
the  change  of  name  was  made  at  Simon’s  first  introduction  to  the 
Saviour.  But  there  is  no  improbability  in  the  supposition  that 
the  words  were  repeated  upon  this,  as  they  were  upon  a  subsequent 
occasion  (see  below,  on  16,  18).  The  name  does  not  denote  constancy 
or  firmness,  which  were  not  peculiar  traits  of  Peter’s  character,  but 
strength  and  boldness,  or  the  founding  of  the  church  upon  a  rock,  as 
taught  in  the  last  cited  words  of  Matthew.  The  new  name  did  not 
wholly  supersede  the  old  one,  as  in  the  case  of  Saul  and  Paul  (Acts 


280 


MATTHEW  10,  2.  3. 


13,  9) ;  for  we  find  the  latter  still  employed  by  Christ  himself  (see 
Mark  14,  37,  and  compare  below  16,  16.  17.  17,  25.  Luke  22,  31. 
John  21, 16.  17),  as  well  as  by  the  other  Apostles  (Luke  24,  34.  Acts  15, 

14).  Throughout  the  Gospel  of  John  ( 6,  8.  68,  &c.)  and  in  the  open¬ 
ing  words  of  Peter’s  second  epistle,  both  names  are  combined.  The 
place  assigned  to  Peter,  in  all  the  lists  of  the  Apostles  and  expressly 
here,  is  not  fortuitous,  nor  founded  simply  on  his  being  one  of  those 
first  called ;  for  Andrew  then  would  take  precedence  of  him.  That  it 
does  not,  on  the  other  hand,  imply  a  permanent  superiority  of  rank  or 
office  may  be  argued  from  the  fact  that  no  such  primacy  is  anywhere 
ascribed  to  him;  that  he  was  frequently  betrayed  into  the  gravest 
errors,  both  of  judgment  and  of  practice,  and  repeatedly  rebuked  with 
great  severity  by  Christ  himself;  and  lastly,  that  he  alone  of  the 
eleven  went  so  far  as  to  deny  his  Master,  and  continued  under  the 
reproach  of  that  apostasy  until  the  risen  Saviour  condescended  to 
restore  him  (John  21,  15-17).  His  true  historical  position  is  that  of  ' 
spokesman  to  the  college  of  Apostles,  like  the  foreman  of  a  jury  or 
the  chairman  of  a  large  committee.  This  place  was  not  assigned  him 
for  his  own  distinction,  but  for  the  convenience  of  his  Master  and  his 
brethren,  in  whose  name  and  behalf  he  often  speaks,  and  is  addressed 
in  turn.  He  was  qualified  for  the  position,  not  by  any  moral  supe¬ 
riority,  but  by  his  forwardness  of  speech  and  action,  often  accompanied 
by  rashness  and  inconstancy  of  temper.  Even  after  the  effusion  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  which  corrected  and  subdued  these  constitutional 
infirmities,  we  find  some  trace  of  them  in  Peter’s  course  at  Antioch, 
reproved  by  Paul,  and  recorded  in  Gal.  2,  11-14.  James  and  John^ 
whose  call  has  been  already  mentioned  in  4,  21.  22.  We  here  learn 
the  name  of  their  father,  whom  they  then  left  with  the  hired  men  in 
the  boat.  James  is  described  as  the  son  of  Zebedee,  and  John  as  the 
brother  of  James,  apart  from  whom  he  is  never  mentioned.  This  is 
the  more  remarkable  as  James  was  the  first  and  John  the  last  of  the 
Apostles  who  died.  James  was  also  the  first  martyr  of  the  apostolic 
body  (see  Acts  12,  2).  These  illustrious  brothers  Mark  puts  next  to 
Peter,  whose  own  brother  Andrew  is  thereby  transferred  to  the  fourth 
place  ;  whereas  iMatthew  names  the  two  pairs  of  brothers  in  the  order 
of  their  previous  vocation  as  recorded  in  4,  18.  21.  Luke  adopts 
the  same  arrangement  in  his  gospel  (6,  14),  but  in  Acts  (1,  13)  agrees 
with  Mark’s. 

3.  Philip,  and  Bartholomew  ;  Thomas,  and  Matthew 
the  publican  ;  James  (the  son)  of  Alpheus,  and  Lebbeus, 
whose  surname  was  Thaddeus  ; 

One  observable  distinction  between  Mark’s  and  Matthew’s  lists  of 
the  Apostles  is,  that  the  latter  arranges  them  in  pairs  throughout, 
while  the  former  enumerates  them  singly,  and  being  inserted  between 
every  two  names.  Such  points  of  difference,  however  unimportant  in 
themselves,  are  not  without  their  value  as  proofs  of  distinct  and  inde¬ 
pendent  origin,  excluding  the  hypothesis  of  mere  transcription  or 


281 


MATTHEW  10,3. 

abridgment.  Andrew  and  Philip  are  old  Greek  names,  the  former 
being  found  in  Herodotus,  and  the  latter  ever3nvhere  in  ancient  his¬ 
tory.  These  Apostles  probably  had  Hebrew  names  besides,  which 
had  been  gradually  superseded  by  the  Greek  ones.  It  was  very  com¬ 
mon  for  the  Jews  of  that  age  to  have  double  names,  one  native  and 
one  foreign.  (Compare  Acts  1,  22.  9,  36.  12,  12.  13,  1.  9.)  Andrew 
and  Philip  were  among  the  earliest  of  Christ’s  disciples.  Andrew  hav¬ 
ing  previously  followed  John  the  Baptist,  by  whom  he  was  led  to 
Jesus  as  the  Lamb  of  God,  and  not  only  followed  him,  but  brought  his 
brother  Simon  (Peter)  to  him  (John  1,  41-43).  Philip  was  called  by 
Christ  himself  the  next  day,  as  ITe  was  about  to  remove  from  Judea 
into  Galilee.  Philip,  though  he  seems  to  have  been  called  in  Judea, 
was  a  Galilean  and  a  townsman  of  Andrew  and  Peter  (John  1,  44. 
45).  He  was  himself  the  introducer  of  Nathanael,  upon  whom  our 
Lord  pronounced  so  high  a  commendation  (John  1,  48),  but  who  never 
afterwards  appears  by  that  name  until  after  the  resurrection,  when 
we  find  him  in  company  with  four,  and  probably  with  six  of  the 
Apostles  (John  21,  2).  This  has  led  to  the  not  improbable  conclusion 
that  Nathanael  was  the  person  called  Bartholomew^  in  all  the  lists  of 
the  Apostles,  and  in  three  of  them  placed  next  to  Philip  (compare 
Mark  3,  18.  Luke  6.  14),  while  the  fourth  only  introduces  Thomas 
between  them  (Acts  1,  13),  Nathanael  was  a  resident  of  Cana  in 
Galilee,  the  scene  of  Christ’s  first  miracle  (John  2,  1,  4,  46.  21,  2). 
Matthew^  whose  previous  vocation  is  recorded  in  9,  9.  (Luke  5,  27), 
where  he  is  called  Levi ;  but  he  calls  himself  ]\Iatthew,  in  describing 
that  event,  and  adds  the  public an^  omitted  by  the  others.  Thomas 
was  also  called  Bidymus,  the  two  names  being  Aramaic  and  Greek 
synonyms,  both  meaning  a  twin.  Besides  the  lists  of  the  Apostles, 
Thomas  is  named  eight  times  in  the  Gospel  of  John  (11,  16.  14,  5. 
20,  24-29.  21,  2).  James  {the  son)  of  Alpheus,  as  the  ellipsis  is  no 
doubt  to  be  supplied.  The  latter  seems  to  be  a  Greek  modification 
of  an  Aramaic  name,  of  which  Clopas  (John  19,  25),  is  supposed  to  be 
another  form.  Now,  as  Clopas  was  the  husband  of  the  Virgin  Mary’s 
sister  (John  19,  25),  his  son  would  be  the  cousin  of  our  Lord,  and 
might,  according  to  a  common  Hebrew  idiom,  be  called  his  brother. 
(See  below  on  13,  55,  and  compare  Gal.  1, 19).  Thaddeus  occurs  also  in 
Mark  3,  18  ;  it  is  given  as  the  surname  of  Lebbeus^  a  name  only  men¬ 
tioned  here.  But  as  both  evangelists  omit  the  name  of  Judas  {not 
Iscariot.^  John  14,  22),  which  is  given  by  Luke  (6,  16.  Acts  1,  13),  it 
seems  to  follow  that  this  Judas,  Thaddeus,  and  Lebbeus  were  one  and 
the  same  person.  Some  suppose  the  last  two  names  to  be  synonymous, 
because  derived  from  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  words,  meaning  heart  and 
breast ;  but  this  is  doubtful.  Luke  describes  him  in  both  places  as 
{the  son)  ofjames^  if  the  ellipsis  be  supplied  as  in  the  case  of  James  {the 
son)  of  Alpheus^  or  {the  brother)  of  James^  as  most  interpreters  ex¬ 
plain  it  and  refer  it  to  the  James  just  mentioned.  Judas  may  then  be 
identified  with  Jude,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  and  the  author  of  the 
short  epistle  near  the  end  of  the  New  Testament  canon  (see  below,  on 
13,  55,  and  compare  Jude,  v.  1). 


282 


MATTHEW  10,4. 


4.  Simon  the  Canaanite,  and  Judas  Iscariot,  who  also 
betrayed  him. 

Simon  the  Canaanite^  not  an  inhabitant  of  Canaan  (Cranmer),  or  of 
Cana  (Tyndale),  both  which  would  be  written  otherwise  in  Greek,  but 
a  Zealot,  as  it  is  explained  by  Luke  (6,  15.  Acts  1,  13),  and  as  the 
name  itself,  according  to  its  Hebrew  etymology,  would  signify.  It . 
may  be  descriptive  of  his  personal  character  and  temper,  but  much 
more  probably  of  his  connection  with  the  sect  or  party  of  the  Zealots, 
as  fanatical  adherents  to  the  Jewish  institutions  and  opponents  of  all 
compromise  with  heathenism,  wHo  assumed  the  right  of  executing 
summary  justice  after  the  example  of  Phineas  (Numb.  25,  7.  Ps.  106, 
30),  and  by  their  sanguinary  excesses  caused  or  hastened  the  destruc¬ 
tion  of  Jerusalem.  To  this  party,  of  which  traces  may  be  elsewhere 
found  in  the  New  Testament  (see  below,  on  27,  10,  and  compare  Acts 
23,  12),  Simon  may  have  been  attached  before  he  was  named  as  an 
apostle.  The  juxtaposition  of  his  name  with  those  of  James  and  Jude 
(see  Luke,  C,  15.  Acts  1,  13),  exhibits  a  coincidence  with  13,  55,  which 
can  hardly  be  fortuitous,  and  naturally  leads  to  the  conclusion  that 
this  Simon  was  also  one  of  our  Lord’s  brethren.  Iscariot  has  been 
variously  explained  as  an  appellative,  but  is  now  commonly  agreed  to 
be  a  local  name,  denoting  man  of  Kerioth,  as  the  similar  form  Istol)os^ 
used  by  Josephus,  means  a  man  of  Tol.  As  Kerioth  was  a  town  of 
Judah  (Josh  15,  25),  Judas  is  the  only  one  of  the  Apostles  whom  we 
have  any  reason  to  regard  as  not  a  Galilean.  Also^  i.  e.  besides  being 
an  Apostle,  or  although  he  was  one,  which  was  a  fearful  aggravation 
of  his  guilt.  (See  below  on  ,26.  47,  and  compare  Acts  1,  17.  25). 
Betray ef  though  necessarily  implied,  is  not  the  exact  import  of  the 
verb,  which  simply  means  to  give  up  or  deliver  into  the  power  of 
another,  by  judicial  process  (see  above,  on  5,  25.  18,  34),  or  by  re¬ 
commendation  to  his  favour.  (Acts  14,  26.  15,  40.)  But  its  constant 
application  to  the  act  of  Judas  in  betraying  Christ,  has  given  it  a 
secondary  sense  equivalent  to  the  stronger  terms  employed  by  Luke 
(betrayer^  traitor).  The  choice  of  this  man  to  be  one  of  the  immediate 
followers  of  Christ,  with  perfect  knowledge  of  his  character  and  fore¬ 
sight  of  his  treason  (John  6,  64.  70.  71),  is  undoubtedly  surprising, 
and  at  variance  with  the  course  which  human  wisdom  would  have 
marked  out.  But  the  foolishness  of  God  is  wiser  than  men  (1  Cor.  1, 
25),  and  it  may  have  been  a  part  of  the  divine  plan  to  illustrate  by  the 
history  of  Judas  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  choosing  even  his  most 
honoured  instruments,  without  regard  to  any  merit  of  their  own,  as 
well  as  to  forewarn  the  church  that  absolute  purity,  although  to  be 
desired  and  aimed  at,  cannot  be  expected  even  in  her  highest  places 
during  her  militant  condition,  or  at  least  to  guard  her  against  terror 
and  despair,  when  such  defections  do  occur,  by  constantly  reminding 
her  that  of  the  twelve  whom  Christ  selected  to  be  with  him  and  to  go 
out  from  him  (Mark  3,  14),  one  was  declared  by  himself  to  be  a 
“devil,”  .and  a  “son  of  perdition.’  (John  6,  70.  17,  12.) 


MATTHEW  10,  5.  6.  7. 


283 


5.  These  twelve  Jesus  sent  forth,  and  commanded 
them,  saying.  Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and 
into  (any)  city  of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye  not : 

6.  But  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel. 

Their  original  commission  was  not  ecumenical  or  catholic,  but 
strictly  national  and  theocratical,  because  the  Christian  church  was  to 
be  founded  on  the  Jewish.  Charging^  a  Greek  word  primarily  used 
of  a  military  watchword  or  countersign,  and  therefore  specially  appro¬ 
priate  in  this  place,  where  the  twelve  are  for  the  first  time  going  forth 
as  representatives  and  aids  to  their  great  leader.  The  way  of  the 
Gentiles  is  paraphrased  by  Tyndale,  the  ways  that  lead  to  the  Gentiles, 
The  Samaritans  are  added  as  half-heathen,  or  as  the  connecting  link 
between  the  Jews  and  Gentiles.  They  were  a  mixed  or  as  some 
suppose  a  purely  heathen  race,  introduced  by  the  Assyrians  to  supply 
the  place  of  the  ten  tribes  (2  Kings  17,  24),  and  afterwards  partially 
assimilated  to  the  Jews  (ib.  25-41)  by  the  reception  of  the  law  of 
Moses,  and  the  professed  worship  of  Jehovah  on  Mount  Gerizim,  in¬ 
volving  a  rejection  of  the  sanctuary  at  J erusalem,  from  the  rebuilding 
of  which,  after  the  Babylonish  exile,  they  were  excluded  by  the  restor¬ 
ed  Jews  (Ezra  4,  1-3).  At  the  time  of  the  advent  they  were  expect¬ 
ing  the  Messiah,  but  only,  it  should  seem,  in  his  prophetic  character 
(John  4,  25),  for  which  reason,  and  because  of  their  entire  segregation 
from  the  Jews  (John  4,  9),  our  Saviour  did  not  scruple  to  avow  his 
Messiahship  among  them  (J  ohn  4,  26.  29.  42),  and  to  gather  the  first 
fruits  of  an  extra-judaic  church  (ib.  39),  with  the  promise  of  a  more 
abundant  harvest  to  be  reaped  by  his  apostles  (ib.  vs.  35-38).  Of  this 
promise  the  fulfilment  is  recorded  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  Acts  ;  but 
as  yet  the  apostles  were  restricted  to  the  Jews.  Lost  sheep ^  wandering 
without  a  shepherd,  in  allusion  to  the  figurative  terms  of  9,  36. 
House  of  Israel^  family  of  Jacob,  his  descendants  in  the  aggregate,  con¬ 
sidered  as  the  chosen  people,  and  represented  by  the  whole  tribes  of 
Judah  and  Levi,  with  such  members  of  the  rest  as  had  been  incor¬ 
porated  with  them.  A  city  of  the  Samaritans^  in  striking  contrast 
with  the  fact  recorded  in  Acts  8,  5,  where  a  kindred  phrase  is  used  (a 
city  of  Samaria)  as  if  to  show  that  the  restriction  here  imposed  had 
been  removed  hy  Christ’s  ascension  and  the  giving  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

7.  And  as  ye  go,  preach,  saying,  The  kingdom  of  heav¬ 
en  is  at  hand. 

The  first  word  in  Greek  is  the  participle  of  the  verb  in  the  preced¬ 
ing  verse — go  ....  and  going ^  for  the  very  purpose,  and  not  as  a 
mere  incidental  thing,  which  may  be  the  idea  suggested  to  some  readers 
by  the  common  version  {as  ye  go).  Preachy  proclaim,  announce,  as  in 


284 


MATTHEW  10,7.8.9. 


3, 1.  4, 17.  23.  The  subject-matter  of  the  proclamation  is  the  same  too 
as  in  Christ’s  first  preaching,  namely,  the  approach  of  the  Messiah’s 
kingdom.  This  confirms  what  has  been  already  said,  that  the  original 
or  primary  mission  of  the  twelve  was  a  preparatory  one,  not  only  re¬ 
stricted  to  the  Jews,  but  even  with  respect  to  them  intended  mainly  to 
arouse  attention  and  prepare  the  way  for  more  explicit  teaching. 


8.  Heal  tlie  sick,  cleanse  tlie  lepers,  raise  the  dead, 
cast  out  devils  :  freely  ye  have  received,  freely  give. 

This  verse  describes  the  miraculous  credentials  by  which  their 
commission  was  to  be  attested.  It  gives  the  very  wmrds  of  the  com¬ 
mission  which  had  been  described  in  v.  1.  The  acts  commanded  are 
the  same  which  have  already  been  repeatedly  ascribed  to  Christ  him¬ 
self.  (See  above,  4,  23.  8, 16.  9,  35.)  It  is  therefore  a  formal  delega¬ 
tion  of  his  own  extraordinary  powers  to  the  twelve  for  a  limited  time 
and  a  specific  purpose.  It  is  also  tacitly  restricted  b}"  a  reference  to 
the  cilcumstances  under  which  they  were  to  exercise  these  powers, 
namely,  so  far  as  they  had  occasion  or  were  divinely  guided.  Baise 
the  dead  may,  therefore,  be  a  license  which  they  never  used,  at  least 
on  this  first  mission,  though  the  silence  of  the  record  as  to  such  re¬ 
suscitations,  if  they  did  take  place,  is  easily  explained  by  the  consider¬ 
ation  that  the  Gospel  is  the  Life  of  Christ  and  not  of  his  apostles, 
who  are  only  introduced  at  all  in  order  to  complete  his  history.  The 
words  in  question  are  omitted  in  most  uncial  manuscripts,  while  others 
place  them  before  cleanse  the  lexers.  Freely  is  properly  an  adjective 
meaning  gratuitous^  but  like  yaKpdv  in  8,  30,  used  as  an  adverb,  corre¬ 
sponding  to  the  Latin  gratis^  which  is  actually  introduced  here  by  the 
Rhemish  version.  This  last  clause  is  a  necessary  caution  against  all 
mercenary  selfish  use  of  their  extraordinary  powers,  which  were  not 
their  own  but  merely  lent  for  the  good  of  others. 

9.  Provide  neither  gold,  nor  silver,  nor  brass  in  your 
purses  ; 

To  their  main  commission  is  now  added  a  special  charge  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  two  points,  their  equipment  for  the  journe}^,  and  their  conduct 
towards  the  people  with  whom  they  came  in  contact.  Proride^  ac¬ 
quire,  get  (as  in  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible).  The  idea  of  money 
is  expressed  by  naming  the  three  metals,  of  which  it  was  then,  as  now, 
composed ;  viz.,  gold,  silver,  and  copper,  which  is  the  true  sense  of  the 
word  translated  hrass^  an  English  term  denoting  the  alloy  of  zinc  and 
copper,  which  is  said  to  have  been  unknown  to  the  ancients,  whereas 
that  of  tin  and  copper,  commonly  called  loronze^  was  extensively  em¬ 
ployed,  especially  in  works  of  art,  and  sometimes  designated  by  the 
very  word  here  used.  In  your  purses^  literally,  into  your  girdles,  the 
construction  implying  previous  insertion,  and  the  whole  phrase  a  cus¬ 
tom,  ’still  prevailing  in  the  east,  of  using  the  belt  which  keeps  the  flow 


2S5 


MATTHEW  10,9.10.11. 

ing  dress  together  as  a  purse  or  pocket.  Horace  and  Livy  speak  of 
money  in  the  girdle,  and  Plutarch  combines  the  very  two  Greek  words 
employed  by  Matthew. 

10.  Nor  scrip  for  (your)  journey,  neither  two  coats, 
neither  shoes,  nor  yet  staves  ;  for  the  workman  is  worthy 
of  his  meat. 

a  sc7^ip,  an  old  word  answering  to  bag,  sack,  wallet,  used  for 
carrying  provisions.  They  were  to  take  no  such  convenience  with 
thein  into  the  road^  or  on  their  journey.  Nor  two  coats^  tunics,  shirts, 
the  inner  garment  of  the  oriental  dress,  worn  next  the  skin  and  reach¬ 
ing  to  the  knees.  (See  above,  on  5,  40.)  The  thing  prohibited  is  not 
the  coat  itself,  but  the  additional  supply  or  change  of  raiment.  The 
idea  of  duplicity  or  plurality  is  probably  to  be  extended  to  shoes  or  san¬ 
dals  (see  above  on  3,  11)  and  staves^  as  meaning  extra  or  additional  ar¬ 
ticles  of  that  kind.  The  ground  of  these  prohibitions  is  by  no  means 
an  ascetic  rigour,  but  the  hurried  nature  of  their  errand,  and  the  cer¬ 
tainty  that  all  their  wants  would  be  supplied  by  those  who  received 
their  message  and  acknowledged  their  commission.  Worthy  of^  enti¬ 
tled  to,  his  meat^  in  the  wide  old  English  sense  Qifood  or,  as  the  Greek 
word  strictly  denotes,  nourishment.  (See  above,  on  3,  4.  6,  25.)  The 
meaning  of  the  clause  is  that  there  could  be  no  need  of  additional  pro¬ 
vision  for  their  journey,  since  they  were  going  forth  as  labourers  (with 
obvious  allusion  to  9,  37),  and  as  such  would  of  course  be  fed  by  those 
among  whom  and  for  whom  they  laboured. 

11.  And  into  whatsoever  city  or  town  ye  shall  enter, 
inquire  who  in  it  is  worthy  ;  and  there  abide  till  ye  go 
thence. 

"What  is  here  said  is  explanatory  of  the  charge  immediately  pre¬ 
ceding.  They  had  no  need  of  luggage  or  provisions  because  they  would 
be  hospitably  entertained  at  every  stopping  place.  Into  ichatever  city 
or  milage^  i.  c.  large  or  small  town,  in  the  proper  English  (not  New 
England)  sense  of  that  term.  Ye  may  go  in.^  a  contingent  form  impl}'- 
ing  that  he  left  the  precise  route  or  itinerary  to  their  own  discretion. 
Inquire.^  a  stronger  word  in  Greek,  denoting  a  laborious  searching  out 
or  discovery  of  the  truth.  In  it.^  i.  e.  in  the  town,  whether  city  or  vil¬ 
lage.  Worthy.^  entitled  by  his  character  and  hospitable  habits  to  be 
the  entertainer  of  Christ’s  messengers.  There.^  in  the  house  thus 
pointed  out  or  ascertained  as  the  proper  place  of  their  abode.  Abide, 
not  in  the  modern  sense  of  permanently  dwelling,  but  in  the  vaguer 
one  of  staying  or  remaining,  without  reference  to  time.  Thence,  not 
from  the  house,  but  from  the  town  or  neighbourhood.  The  meaning 
of  this  charge  is  that,  although  they  would  be  cheerfully  received  and 
entertained  wherever  there  were  true  disciples,  they  must  give  no  un¬ 
necessary  trouble  and  attract  no  unnecessary  notice  by  removals  from 


286 


MATTHEW  10,11.12.13. 


one  dwelling  to  another  in  the  same  place.  (Compare  Lnke  10, 7.) 
They  were  not  to  be  received  as  visitors  but  messengers  or  heralds, 
and  must  be  content  with  what  was  absolutely  requisite  for  their  sub¬ 
sistence. 

12.  And  when  ye  come  into  a  house^  salute  it. 

We  have  here  more  particularly  stated  than  in  either  of  the  other 
gospels  the  precise  mode  in  which  the  twelve  were  to  take  possession 
of  their  temporary  homes.  When  ye  come  might  be  more  exactly 
rendered  coming  (or  going),  i.  e.  in  the  very  act  of  entering.  Aii  house 
should  be  the  house,  as  the  reference  is  specific  and  direct  to  the  par¬ 
ticular  house  ascertained  and  chosen  in  accordance  with  the  previous 
directions  (in  v.  11).  Salute  it,  greet  it,  a  Greek  word  properly  ex¬ 
pressive  of  the  welcome  given  to  a  person  on  his  arrival,  but  here,  by 
a  natural  inversion,  used  to  denote  the  expression  of  a  kindly  feeling 
by  the  new-comer  to  his  place  of  entertainment,  and  virtually  there¬ 
fore  to  his  entertainers,  though  we  need  not  formally  assume  a  figura¬ 
tive  substitution  of  the  house  for  its  inhabitants.  The  spirit  of  the 
precept  is,  express  your  good-will  at  the  time  of  your  arrival,  and  do 
not  take  possession  of  your  quarters  with  a  cold  indifference,  much 
less  with  an  arrogant  assumption  of  a  right  which  does  not  really  be¬ 
long  to  you. 

13,  And  if  the  liouse  be  worthy,  let  your  peace  come 
upon  it :  but  if  it  be  not  worthy,  let  your  peace  return  to 
you. 

This  sentence  seems  designed  to  obviate  a  silent  or  expressed  ob¬ 
jection  on  the  part  of  the  disciples,  who  might  naturally  feel  unwilling 
to  commit  themselves  by  such  a  salutation  till  they  knew  by  experi¬ 
ment  how  they  would  be  received.  ‘  But  what  if  the  house  should 
prove  unworthy,  an  unfit  place  even  for  our  temporary  residence  ?  ’ 
The  answer  is  that  even  in  the  case  supposed,  nothing  would  be  lost 
by  first  saluting  it.  If  the  greeting  did  not  profit  those  for  whom  it 
was  intended,  it  would  profit  those  who  gave  it.  Peace  means  the 
peace  which  they  had  wished  it,  in  allusion  to  the  customary  oriental 
form  of  salutation  both  in  earlier  and  later  times,  namely,  Peace  be  to 
you  (or  upon  you).  The  salaam  alaikom  of  the  modern  Arab  is  iden¬ 
tical  in  letter  and  in  spirit  with  the  shalom  lahem  of  the  old  Hebrew.* 
The  future  form  adopted  by  the  Vulgate,  Luther,  Tyndale,  and  some 
other  versions  (shall  come,  shall  return),  though  really  implied  in  the 
original,  falls  short  of  its  full  import.  The  imperative  or  hortatory 
form,  correctly  rendered  in  our  Bible  (let  your  gjeace  come,  let  your 
yteace  return),  conveys  the  additional  idea,  not  suggested  by  the  future, 
that  they  ought  to  let  it  be  so,  or  consent  to  the  result  whatever  it 

*  See  Gen.  43, 23,  Judges  6,  23.  19,  20.  1  Chron.  12,  18,  and  compare  particu¬ 
larly  1  Sam.  25,  6  and  Ps.  122,  7.  8. 


287 


MATTHEW  10,13.14.15. 

might  prove.  ‘  Instead  of  anxiously  withholding  the  expression  of 
your  good-will  till  you  know  how  it  will  be  received,  impart  it  freely ; 
and  if  they  respond  to  it,  let  them  enjoy  the  blessing  you  have  called 
down  on  them ;  if  they  slight  it  or  reject  it,  be  content  with  having 
brought  a  blessing  on  yourselves  by  showing  such  a  spirit  and  obeying 
my  express  command.’  This  explanation  seems  to  agree  better  with 
the  strong  and  positive  expression,  let  it  turn  lack  to  you  (or  upon 
yoursehe^^  than  the  negative  interpretation,  ‘  let  it  be  recalled,  or  con¬ 
sider  it  as  unsaid.’  There  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  similar  expression 
in  Ps.  35, 13,  as  interpreted  traditionally  and  no  doubt  correctly  by  the 
Jewish  doctors. 

14.  And  whosoever  shall  not  receive  yon,  nor  hear 
your  words,  when  ye  depart  out  of  that  house  or  city, 
shake  olf  the  dust  of  your  feet. 

The  foregoing  directions  presupposed  that  they  would  everywhere 
be  well  received  j  but  they  are  now  prepared  to  meet  with  marked  ex¬ 
ceptions,  not  in  families  or  houses  merely,  but  in  towns  and  whole 
communities  (Luke  9,  5).  This  we  know  was  the  experience  of  our 
Lord  himself  (see  above  on  8,34,  and  compare  Luke  9,53),  and  he 
instructs  the  twelve  how  to  act  in  all  such  cases.  Whosoever  shall  not 
receive  you^  not  as  guests  merely,  but  as  teachers,  neither  hear  you^ 
speaking  in  my  name,  by  my  authorit}^,  and  of  my  kingdom.  When 
ye  depart,  or  more  exactly,  going  out,  i.  e.  immediately  when  thus  re¬ 
jected.  Shake  off\^  the  expression  used  by  Luke  (9,5),  whereas  that 
of  Mark  (6,  11)  and  Matthew  strictly  means  to  shake  out,  though  de¬ 
scriptive  of  the  same  act.  Bust  is  also  the  expression  used  by  Luke, 
while  the  one  employed  by  Mark  means  strictly  earth  thrown  up  from 
any  excavation,  but  appears  to  have  acquired  in  the  later  Greek  the 
sense  of  loose  earth  or  flying  dust.  Of  your  feet,  a  supplementary 
specification,  meaning  that  which  adheres  to  the  feet  in  walking.  The 
act  enjoined  is  a  symbolical  one,  meaning  that  they  vsmuld  not  even  let 
the  dust  of  the  places  where  these  people  lived  adhere  to  them,  much 
less  consent  to  come  in  contact  with  themselves,  in  other  words,  that 
they  renounced  all  intercourse  with  them  forever.  The  same  essential 
meaning  was  expressed  by  the  kindred  act  of  shaking  the  garments. 
That  both  were  practised  by  the  apostles,  even  after  Christ’s  ascen¬ 
sion,  we  may  learn  from  Paul’s  example  at  Antioch  and  Corinth  (Acts 
13,  51.  18,  6).  The  ancient  Jews  are  said  to  have  adopted  the  same 
method  on  returning  to  the  Holy  Land  from  foreign  countries,  to  de¬ 
note  that  they  desired  to  abjure  and  leave  behind  all  that  cleaved  to 
them  of  heathenism.  In  the  case  before  us,  it  was  reciprocal  rejection 
of  those  by  whom  they  were  themselves  rejected. 

15.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  It  shall  be  more  tolerable 
for  the  land  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  in  the  day  of  judg¬ 
ment,  than  for  that  city. 


288 


MATTHEW  10,15.16. 

The  meaning  of  this  verse  is  that  the  guilt  of  those  who  thus  delib¬ 
erately  rejected  Christ  when  offered  to  them  was  incomparably  great¬ 
er  than  the  most  atrocious  sins  of  those  who  had  enjoyed  no  such  ad¬ 
vantage.  The  case  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  (Gen.  iS,  20.  19,  24.  25) 
is  a  standing  type  in  Scripture,  both  of  aggravated  sin  and  fearful  ret¬ 
ribution  (Deut.  29,  23.  Isai.  13,  19.  Jer.  49,  18.  50,  40.  Amos  4,  11). 
The  threatening  here  implied,  if  not  expressed,  has  reference  to  the 
last  appeal  which  Christ  was  now  about  to  make,  the  farewell  offer  of 
himself  and  his  salvation,  by  the  aid  of  the  apostles  to  the  whole  pop¬ 
ulation  of  the  country,  or  at  least  of  Galilee,  before  the  days  of  his  as¬ 
sumption  should  be  filled  and  his  face  set  for  the  last  time  towards 
Jerusalem  (Luke  9,  51). 

16.  Behold,  I  send  you  forth  as  sheep  in  the  midst  of 
wolves  :  he  ye  therefore  wise  as  serpents,  and  harmless  as 
doves. 

A  question  of  some  difficulty  here  arises,  as  to  the  connection  of 
this  verse  vdth  the  foregoing  context.  The  obvious  and  natural  pre¬ 
sumption  is  that  it  simply  continues  Christ’s  discourse  at  the  first  send¬ 
ing  forth  of  the  apostles,  and  that  the  remainder  of  the  chapter,  like 
the  former  part,  refers  directly  to  their  original  and  temporary  mission. 
But  on  looking  at  the  passage  in  detail,  we  find  some  things  which 
scarcely  admit  of  such  a  reference,  especially  the  warning  against  per¬ 
secution  which  runs  through  the  whole,  and  which  was  never  realized 
till  after  the  close  of  our  Lord’s  personal  ministry.  This  seems  to 
point  ro  the  conclusion,  that  the  charge  relating  to  the  first  mission 
ends  with  the  preceding  verse,  and  that  the  one  before  us  is  the  open¬ 
ing  of  a  more  general  and  prospective  charge  relating  to  their  subse¬ 
quent  apostolical  labours.  This  view  of  the  connection  is  recommended, 
first,  by  its  removing  the  apparent  anachronism  or  incongruity 
already  mentioned ;  then,  by  the  slight  but  obvious  appearance  of  a 
fresh  start  or  a  new  beginning  in  the  first  words  of  this  verse ;  and 
lastly,  by  the  otherwise  inexplicable  fact,  that  neither  Mark  nor 
Luke  records  this  latter  charge,  a  circumstance  which  seems  to  favour 
the  opinion  that  it  was  delivered  on  a  different  occasion,  and  only  add¬ 
ed  here  by  Matthew,  in  accordance  with  his  topical  arrangement,  to 
complete  the  history  of  the  apostolical  organization.  But  this,  however 
probable,  is  not  a  necessary  supposition,  as  the  verse  before  us  may  be 
merely  the  transition  from  the  immediate  to  the  ulterior  instruction  of 
the  twelve.  Behold  is  then  the  mark  of  this  transition,  calling  atten¬ 
tion,  as  usual,  to  something  new  and  unexpected.  /,  being  expressed  in 
Greek  without  grammatical  necessity,  must  be  emphatic  and  suggestive 
of  the  high  authority  by  which  they  were  commissioned.  Send  you 
forth  is  more  significant  in  Greek,  because  the  verb  is  that  from  which 
a]}08tle  is  derived,  and  may,  therefore,  be  regarded  as  equivalent  to 
saying,  ‘  I  ordain  (or  constitute)  you  my  apostles.’  According  to  the 
view  of  the  connection  just  presented,  this  expression  may  be  still 
further  amplified  and  paraphrased  as  follows  :  ‘  But  your  work  is  not 


MATTHEW  10,16. 


289 


to  end  with  this  immediate  proclamation  of  the  kingdom  and  the  mir¬ 
acles  attesting  it.  Behold,  I  have  commissioned  you  as  permanent 
apostles,  to  re-organize  the  church  and  to  complete  the  revelation  of 
its  doctrine ;  and  I  now  proceed  to  warn  you  of  the  treatment  which 
you  may  expect,  and  of  the  conduct  which  you  are  to  hold  not  merely 
now,  but  when  I  shall  be  taken  from  you.’  The  first  fact  stated,  in 
the  execution  of  this  plan,  is  that  the  world  would  be  their  enemy, 
and  that  this  relation  would  require  peculiar  qualities  on  their  part. 
These  ideas  are  expressed  by  figures  borrowed  from  the  animal  creation, 
four  species  being  mentioned,  one  to  represent  their  enemies  and  three 
themselves.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  too,  even  if  fortuitous,  that  the 
S3"mbols  are  borrowed  from  the  three  great  classes  of  beasts,  birds,  and 
reptiles,  and  that  both  the  familiar  subdivisions  of  the  first  class  (wild 
and  tame)  arc  represented.  The  contrast  in  the  first  clause  is  identical 
with  that  in  7,  15,  sheej)  and  wolves  being  specified  as  natural  enemies, 
but  here  with  special  stress  upon  the  circumstance  that  one  is  helpless 
and  the  other  cruel.  At  the  same  time,  the  use  of  the  term  sheep^ 
as  usual,  suggests  the  idea  of  comparative  worth  or  value,  and  of  inti¬ 
mate  relation  to  the  shepherd  or  proprietor.  With  due  regard  to 
these  distinct  aspects  of  the  images  here  presented,  the  essential  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  clause,  divested  of  its  figurative  dress,  is,  that  he  commis¬ 
sioned  them,  as  his  own  cherished  followers  and  servants,  to  go  forth 
unarmed,  and  in  themselves  entirely  helpless,  in  the  midst  of  powerful 
and  cruel  foes.  The  last  clause  states  the  duty  thence  arising,  and 
the  means  of  security  amidst  such  perils.  Therefore^  because  you  are 
so  precious,  yet  so  helpless,  and  because  your  enemies  are  so  superior 
in  strength  and  malice.  Be  ye  is  in  Greek  much  more  expressive, 
meaning  properly,  loecome  ye^  or  begin  to  be,*  implying  the  necessity 
of  change  to  make  them  what  they  were  not  by  nature  or  by  habit. 
The  contrast  here  is  not,  as  in  the  first  clause,  between  them  and 
those  who  should  oppose  them,  but  between  two  different  and  at  first 
sight  inconsistent  qualities,  which  they  must  have  and  exercise,  in  order 
to  their  safety.  These  were  prudence  or  discretion,  and  simplicity  or 
guilelessness  of  character  and  purpose.  Tlie  idea  is  again  conveyed  by 
figures,  and  of  the  same  kind  as  before  ;  but  the  comparison  is  more 
explicit.  In  the  first  clause,  the  analogy  was  the  familiar  one  between 
sheep  and  wolves,  requiring  no  specification,  as  in  this  case,  where  the 
terms  of  the  similitude  are  more  unusual,  and  therefore,  in  addition  to 
the  names  of  the  animals  emplo3md  as  emblems,  the  respective  qual¬ 
ities  denoted  are  expressly  specified.  He  does  not  simply  say,  as  ser¬ 
pents^  but  wise  as  serpents.  The  allusion  is  not  merely  to  a  popular 
belief,  but  to  a  well-known  fact,  that  this  part  of  the  animal  creation  is 
peculiarly  cautious  in  avoiding  danger.  It  is  this  self-defensive  and 
preservative  faculty,  and  not  the  malignant  cunning  of  the  serpent 
(Gen.  3,  1),  which  is  here  presented  as  an  emblem  and  a  model  to  the 
twelve  apostles.  JDoves^  as  a  genus,  without  reference  to  nice  zoolog- 

*  For  the  usage  of  the  Greek  verb  (ytVofiai),  see  above,  on  4,  3.  5,45.  6,  IG. 
8,  24.  20.  9,  10. 


13 


290 


MATTHEW  10,10.17.18. 

ical  distinctions,  have  in  all  ages  been  proverbial  emblems  of  gentleness 
and  innocence,  especially  in  contrast  with  the  sanguinary  fierceness  of 
those  birds  of  prey  by  which  they  are  persecuted  and  destroyed.  But 
here  a  more  specific  sense  attaches  to  the  emblem,  as  suggested  by  the 
very  derivation  of  the  epithet  employed,  which  primarily  means  un- 
mixed^  and  in  a  moral  application,  free  from  all  duplicity  and  disin¬ 
genuous  complexity  of  motive,  corresponding  thus  exactly  in  essential 
meaning  with  the  “  single  eye,”  of  6,  22.  Harmless  is  therefore  an  inad¬ 
equate  and  inexact  translation,  and  the  true  sense  given  in  the  margin 
{sim'ple').,  of  the  character  required  is  not  mere  abstinence  from  in¬ 
jury  to  others,  but  that  perfect  simplicity  and  purity  of  motive,  with¬ 
out  which  all  the  wisdom  of  the  serpent  would  be  unavailing. 

17.  But  beware  of  men  :  for  tliey  will  deliver  you  up 
to  the  councils,  and  they  will  scourge  you  in  tlieir  syna¬ 
gogues. 

What  had  just  been  briefly  said  in  figurative  form,  is  now  repeated 
fully  and  in  literal  expressions.  The  wolves  of  the  preceding  verse  were 
human  wolves,  and  they  must  therefore  be  upon  their  guard  against 
their  fellow-men.  Beware  ofi^  exactly  the  phrase  used  above  in  7,  15, 
and  there  explained.  The  men  is  here  generically  used  for  mankind  or 
the  human  race,  as  distinguished  from  the  animals  employed  to  represent 
them.  As  if  he  had  said,  ‘remember  that  the  wolves  among  whom  I 
am  sending  you  are  men,  and  as  such  you  must  beware  of  them.’ 
Deliver  you  up  into  the  power  of  the  magistrate  by  accusation  and 
arrest,  the  same  judicial  use  of  the  Greek  verb  that  occurs  above  in 
5, 25.  (See  also  on  4, 12,  and  on  v.  4  of  this  chapter.)  Into  councils 
(not  the  councils).^  the  Greek  word  of  which,  sanhedrim.,  is  a  Hebrew 
or  Aramaic  corruption,  and  elsewhere  applied  to  the  supreme  court 
or  national  council  of  the  Jew.s,  but  in  the  plural  to  their  local  or  pro¬ 
vincial  courts,  the  organization  of  which  is  differently  stated  by  the 
ancient  writers,  and  is  wholly  unimportant  here,  where  the  meaning  is 
simply,  into  courts  of  justice,  the  preposition  signifying  not  mere 
transfer  or  delivery,  but  introduction  to  their  presence  or  arraignment 
at  their  bar.  Synagogues  might  here  seem  to  have  its  primary  and 
wider  sense  of  meetings  or  assemblies  (sec  above,  on  4,  23)  ;  but  there 
are  traces  on  the  Jewish  books  of  such  a  custom  as  the  actual  infliction 
of  such  punishments  at  public  worship.  The  fulfilment  of  these  warn¬ 
ings  may  be  found  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (4, 1.  5, 17. 40. 
1C,  23.  22, 24). 

18.  And  ye  shall  be  brought  before  governors  and 
kings  for  my  sake,  for  a  testimony  against  them  and  the 
Gentiles. 

Oovernors  and  hings  are  here  put  for  the  whole  class  of  individual 
rulers  as  distinguished  from  collective  bodies,  such  as  courts  and 


MATTHEW  10,18-21. 


/ 


291 


councils.  For  a  testimony  to  them  (see  above,  on  8,  4),  i.  e.  of  the 
truth,  and  in  behalf  of  Christ  and  his  religion.  Against  is  too  specific 
and  restricts  the  testimony  to  their  unbelief  and  guilt ;  whereas  it  re¬ 
lated  chiefly  to  the  truth  which  they  rejected.  Gentiles  should  here 
be  nations^  not  only  as  the  primary  and  strict  sense  of  the  Greek  word 
(see  above,  on  4,  15.  6,  32),  but  as  required  by  the  obvious  contrast 
between  rulers  and  the  nations  over  whom  they  ruled.  The  testimony 
thus  borne  was  to  reach  not  only  to  the  head  but  to  the  body  of  the 
people. 

19.  But  when  they  deliver  you  up,  take  no  thought 
how  or  what  ye  shall  speak :  for  it  shall  he  given  you  in 
that  same  hour  what  ye  shall  speak. 

20.  For  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  hut  the  Spirit  of  your 
Father  which  speaketh  in  you. 

Such  alarming  premonitions  required  proportional  encouragem^ent  j 
and  this  is  here  afforded  in  the  promise  of  a  special  inspiration,  to  en¬ 
able  them  to  answer  for  themselves  and  for  the  truth  when  thus  ar¬ 
raigned  before  judicial  bodies  or  the  masses  of  the  people.  (Compare 
Paul’s  experience  of  both,  in  Acts  xxiL  and  xxiii.)  Talie  no  thought 
(as  in  6,  25.  27.  28.  31.  34)  means,  be  not  solicitous,  unduly  anxious. 
Mow  relates  to  the  form,  and  tohat  to  the  substance,  of  their  public  de¬ 
fences  or  apologies.  The  assistance  promised  should  be  so  complete 
that  they  would  be  mere  instruments  or  organs  of  the  Spirit,  who  is 
called  the  Spirit  of  their  Father,  not  merely  as  proceeding  from  him,  but 
as  given  on  account  of  their  filial  relation  to  God  (see  above,  on  5, 16. 
45.  48.  and  ch.  vi.  passim).  This  is  so  far  from  being  a  promise  of 
divine  assistance  to  unprepared  and  off-hand  preachers,  that  it  is  not 
given  even  to  the  twelve  indefinitely  or  forever,  bnt  expressly  limited 
to  one  particular  emergency,  not  only  by  the  first  words  of  v.  19  {when 
they  deliver  you),  but  also  by  the  words,  in  that  hour,  or  at  that  pre¬ 
cise  time  (see  above,  on  8, 13.  9,  22).  This  promise  gives  the  highest 
authority  to  all  the  apostolical  defences  upon  record,  and  precludes  the 
supposition  of  unhallowed  anger  in  such  cases  as  that  of  Paul’s  reply 
to  Ananias  (Acts  23,  3). 

21.  And  the  brother  shall  deliver  up  the  brother  to 
death,  and  the  father  the  child  :  and  the  children  shall 
rise  up  against  (their)  parents,  and  cause  them  to  be  put 
to  death. 

But,  though  they  should  be  thus  sustained,  the  trial  would  un¬ 
doubtedly  occur,  and  in  the  most  distressing  form,  involving  the  disso¬ 
lution  of  the  tenderest  relations.  Deliver  up  is  the  same  word  and 
has  here  the  same  sense  as  in  v.  17,  of  which  tins  is  a  mere  specifica- 


292 


MATTHEW  10,21.22.23. 


tion.  The  idea  is  not  that  of  treachery  but  violence  or  open  enmity, 
displayed  by  legal  and  judicial  acts.  The  article  inserted  in  the  ver¬ 
sion  weakens  it.  The  literal  translation  (brother  ....  brother^ 
father  ....  child)  is  at  the  same  time  more  emphatic  and  impres¬ 
sive.  To  death  suggests  the  thought  of  immediate  execution ;  but  the 
Greek  phrase  (ety  bavarov)  that  of  the  eventual  result,  or  final  object, 
as  in  3,  11,  unto  repentance,  i.  e.  with  a  view  to  it,  and  in  v.  18  above, 
for  a  testimony,  in  all  which  cases  the  preposition  is  the  same.  There 
is  a  climax  in  the  last  clause,  where  the  hatred  just  ascribed  to  broth¬ 
ers  is  affirmed  of  children  (not  the  children)  with  respect  to  parents 
(not  their  parents^  Shall  rise  up  against  is  a  correct  but  feeble  ver¬ 
sion  of  a  doubly  compound  Greek  verb  (iTTavaaTrja-ovTca),  found  only 
here  and  in  Mark  13,  12,  where  the  first  verb  is  gratuitously  rendered 
betray,  although  the  original  expressions  are  identical.  Put  to  death, 
not  directly,  by  killing  them,  but  by  occasioning  their  condemnation, 
to  express  which  may  have  been  the  object  of  the  periphrasis  in  the 
translation. 


22.  And  ye  shall  be  hated  of  all  (men)  for  my  name^s 
sake  :  hut  he  that  endureth  to  the  end  shall  be  saved. 

What  had  just  been  said  in  reference  to  the  tenderest  relations  of 
domestic  life  is  now  repeated  in  a  general  and  universal  form,  not  ex¬ 
clusive  of  particular  exceptions,  but  establishing  the  main  fact,  that 
the  new  religion  was  to  meet  with  opposition,  not  in  one  place,  or 
from  one  race  merely,  but  throughout  the  world,  because  at  variance 
with  the  natural  corruptions  of  the  human  heart.  Of  all  men,  liter¬ 
ally,  by  all,  men  being  needlessly  supplied  by  the  translators.  For 
my  name's  sahe,  on  account  of  my  name,  does  not  mean  merely  for  my 
sake  or  on  account  of  me,  nor  even  as  bearing  my  name,  or  as  Chris¬ 
tians,  but  because  of  all  that  is  denoted  by  that  name,  including  his 
Messianic  claims  and  his  divinity,  with  all  the  sovereignty  and  absolute 
authority  involved  therein.  The  last  clause  shows  that  even  this  hos¬ 
tility  would  not  be  irresistible  or  necessarily  destructive.  He  that 
endureth,  not  only  in  the  sense  of  passively  submitting  to  all  these 
inflictions,  but  in  the  active  one  of  persevering  or  persisting  in  the 
faith  and  conduct  which  provoke  them.  There  is  peculiar  force  in  the 
aorist  participle  here  used,  the  {one)  haring  endured,  i.  e.  the  one  that 
shall  prove  to  have  endured  or  persevered.  To  the  end,  not  a  fixed 
point  but  a  relative  expression,  meaning  the  extreme  or  uttermost  of 
the  trials  through  which  any  one  is  called  to  pass.  Saved,  rescued, 
finally  delivered  from  them.  As  this  is  a  proverbial  or  aphoristic 
sentence,  it  is  not  surprising  that  our  Lord  should  have  employed  it 
upon  various  occasions  and  in  different  connections,  but  without  a 
change  in  its  essential  meaning  (see  below,  on  24,  13). 


23.  But  when  they  persecute  you  in  this  city,  flee  ye 
into  another  :  for  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Ye  shall  not  have 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  10,  23.  24.  25.  293 

gone  over  the  cities  of  Israel,  till  the  Son  of  man  be 
come. 

He  now  gives  a  particular  direction  how  they  were  to  exercise  the 
wisdom  of  the  serpent  under  such  distresses,  namely,  not  by  fanati¬ 
cally  courting  danger,  or  gratuitously  staying  where  they  could  ac¬ 
complish  nothing,  but  by  so  far  yielding  to  the  pressure  as  to  save 
their  lives  for  future  service.  This  is  evidently  not  a  rigid  rule  of 
uniform  or  universal  application,  but  the  allowance  of  a  sound  discre¬ 
tion.  They  were  not  to  fly  as  soon  as  persecution  showed  itself  (see 
Acts  8,  1.  13,  51.  18,  9.  19,  23),  nor  always  to  wait  for  its  appearance, 
but  to  act  upon  the  general  principle  of  husbanding  their  lives  and 
strength  for  the  service  of  their  master.  This  city^  not  the  one  in 
which  he  was  then  speaking,  but  any  one  in  opposition  to  another. 
The  meaning  of  the  last  clause  seems  to  be  that  there  were  towns 
enough  in  Israel  (or  Palestine)  for  them  to  visit  in  succession  on  the 
principle  just  laid  down,  Muthout  ceasing  wholly  from  their  work,  until 
the  danger  should  be  over  and  the  kingdom  of  Messiah  finall}^  estab¬ 
lished.  Gone  over  is  a  needless  and  enfeebling  paraphrase,  the  true 
sense  being  given  in  the  margin  {end  or  finish^.  There  is  another  ex¬ 
planation  of  this  clause  which  refers  it  to  Christ’s  following  the  twelve 
in  their  first  mission,  as  he  did  the  seventy  (Luke  10,  1).  The  mean¬ 
ing  then,  is,  that  before  they  had  fulfilled  the  task  assigned  them,  he 
would  be  himself  upon  the  spot  to  protect  them  or  direct  them  further. 
The  objection  to  this  otherwise  good  sense  is  simply  that  it  disregards 
the  reasons  which  have  been  already  given  for  considering  this  portion 
of  the  chapter  as  a  subsequent  or  supplementary  discourse  relating  not 
to  the  immediate  mission  then  before  them,  but  to  later  and  more  try¬ 
ing  times.  Until  the  Son  of  man  come^  an  indefinite  expression,  mean¬ 
ing  sometimes  more  and  sometimes  less,  but  here  equivalent  to  saying, 
‘  till  the  object  of  your  mission  is  accomplished.’ 

24.  The  disciple  is  not  above  (his)  master,  nor  the 
servant  above  his  lord. 

25.  It  is  enough  for  the  disciple  that  he  be  as  his 
master,  and  the  servant  as  his  lord.  If  they  have  called 
the  master  of  the  house  Beelzebub,  how  much  more 
(shall  they  call)  them  of  his  household  ? 

The  object  of  this  statement  is  to  reconcile  them  to  the  trials  just 
predicted,  by  reminding  them  that  they  were  only  to  be  sharers  in  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  himself.  Entire  exemption  from  distress  and  per¬ 
secution  would  give  them  an  unseemly  and  unjust  advantage  over  him. 
The  sorest  trials  they  had  i-eason  to  expect  would  only  put  them  on  a 
level  with  him.  They  had  every  reason,  therefore,  to  be  satisfied  with 
such  companionship  in  sorrow.  This  general  appeal  to  their  affection 


294  MATTHEW  10,25.26.27. 

for  their  master  takes  a  more  specific  form  in  the  last  clause  of  v.  25, 
which  gives  a  reason  why  they  should  especially  submit  to  any  kind  or 
measure  of  misrepresentation  and  abuse,  to  wit,  because  this  species 
of  ill-treatment  had  been  carried  in  the  case  of  Christ  himself  as  far 
as  possible.  The  Son  of  God  had  been  called  Beelzebul,  one  of  the 
most  offensive  terms  that  could  be  applied  even  to  an  idol  or  an  imag¬ 
inary  being.  This  may  either  be  a  reference  to  something  not  recorded 
in  the  history,  or  to  the  charge  of  collusion  with  Beelzebul  in  work¬ 
ing  miracles  recorded  in  ch.  12,  24  below.  If  the  latter,  which  ap¬ 
pears  more  probable,  it  furnishes  another  reason  for  believing  that  this 
last  part  of  the  chapter  is  of  later  date  (see  above,  on  v.  16).  Them 
of  his  household  corresponds  to  one  Greek  word,  the  nearest  equiva¬ 
lent  to  which  in  English  is  domestics^  now  confined  to  servants,  but 
originally  signifying  all  the  inmates  of  a  house  or  members  of  a  family. 

26.  Fear  them  not  therefore  :  for  there  is  nothing  cov¬ 
ered,  that  shall  not  he  revealed  :  and  hid,  that  shall  not 
be  known. 

27.  What  I  tell  you  in  darkness,  (that)  speak  ye  in 
light :  and  what  ye  hear  in  the  ear,  (that)  preach  ye  upon 
the  housetops. 

Here  begins  a  positive  and  cheering  exhortation  not  to  be  discour¬ 
aged  by  the  prospect  of  these  trials,  with  a  series  of  reasons  drawn 
from  various  considerations.  The  first,  suggested  in  these  verses,  is 
that  this  conflict  with  the  world,  however  painful,  was  essential  to  the 
very  end  for  which  they  were  sent  forth,  and  therefore  could  not  be  es¬ 
caped  without  relinquishing  the  whole  design.  This  was  the  promul¬ 
gation  of  the  truth  or  of  the  new  religion.  What  they  had  learned  of 
him  in  private  was  no  esoteric  doctrine  to  be  cherished  by  a  favoured 
few,  but  light  to  be  diffused  abroad  for  the  dispelling  of  the  universal 
darkness.  (See  above,  on  5, 14-16.)  This  is  clearly  the  meaning  of 
the  charge  or  precept  in  v.  27,  and  must  therefore  determine  that  of  v. 
26,  which  taken  by  itself  might  seem  to  mean  that  the  crimes  now  se¬ 
cretly  committed  by  the  enemies  of  Christ  and  his  disciples  should 
hereafter  be  made  public.  But  though  the  words  might  naturally  bear 
this  meaning,  it  would  here  be  quite  irrelevant,  not  only  because  this 
assurance  was  unsuited  to  console  those  who  experienced  or  expected 
such  ill-treatment,  but  because  the  reference,  throughout  the  passage, 
is  not  to  secret  but  to  public,  and  especially  judicial  persecution.  The 
connection  with  the  previous  verses  is  not  altogether  clear ;  but  on  the 
whole,  it  is  most  probably  the  one  already  pointed  out,  to  wit,  that  as 
the  light  must  be  diffused,  and  men  love  darkness  rather  than  light  be¬ 
cause  their  deeds  are  evil  (John  3, 19),  opposition  cannot  be  avoided 
without  utterly  abandoning  the  very  end  for  which  Christ  came  him¬ 
self  and  sent  forth  his  apostles. 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  10,  28.  29. 


295 


28.  And  fear  not  them  which  kill  the  body,  but  are 
not  able  to  kill  the  soul :  but  rather  fear  him  v.^hich  is 
able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell. 

A  second  reason  for  not  fearing  even  the  most  cruel  and  malignant 
human  enemies,  is  that  their  power  extends  only  to  the  body,  leaving 
the  nobler  spiritual  part,  in  which  the  personality  resides,  uninjured 
and  untouched.  Soul  is  the  word  correctly  rendered  life  in  2,  20.  6, 
25,  but  here  determined  to  mean  soul  bj  the  antithesis  with  l)ody.  But 
lest  this  should  be  understood  as  meaning  that  the  soul  is  in  no  sense 
destructible,  the  last  clause  guards  against  this  error,  by  expressly 
teaching  that  the  soul  may  be  destroyed,  and  that  he  who  has  the 
power  of  destroying  it  is  properly  an  object  of  our  fear.  Another  error 
here  precluded  is  that  of  supposing  that  the  body  will  escape  in  the 
destruction  of  the  soul,  whereas  soul  and  body  must  eventually  perish 
together.  Besides  this  careful  guarding  against  natural  and  common 
errors,  there  is  great  precision  in  the  choice  of  terms,  the  term  Icill  be¬ 
ing  only  used  in  reference  to  the  body  as  distinguished  from  the  soul, 
while  that  employed  in  reference  to  the  soul,  even  when  reunited  to  the 
body,  is  destroy.  Hell^  the  place  of  future  torment.  (See  above,  on  5, 
22.)  This  last  clause  does  not  mean  indefinitely,  fear  one  wdio  can  do 
what  these  enemies  cannot  do,  without  implying  that  there  is  such  a 
being.  This  is  forbidden  by  the  definite  expression,  the  (one)  able.  It 
is  a  very  old  opinion  that  the  person  here  referred  to  is  the  devil;  but 
an  exhortation  to  fear  him  would  be  irrelevant  and  out  of  place  in  this 
connection ;  and  the  power  here  ascribed  to  him  he  only  possesses  as 
an  instrument  or  agent  of  the  wrath  of  God,  who  must  be  reckoned 
therefore  as  the  ultimate  destroyer.  The  exhortation  to  fear  him  is 
really  an  exhortation  to  avoid  displeasing  him  by  disobedience,  and  is 
here  peculiarly  appropriate.  As  if  he  had  said,  ‘  instead  of  shrinking 
from  your  duty  through  fear  of  what  these  enemies  can  do  to  your 
bodies,  be  afraid  of  incurring  God’s  displeasure  by  neglecting  it.’ 

29.  Are  uot  two  sparrows  sold  for  a  farthing  ?  and 
one  of  them  shall  not  fall  on  the  ground  without  your 
Father. 

A  third  reason  for  not  shrinking  from  the  execution  of  their  great 
commission  on  account  of  the  dangers  which  attended  it.  Not  only 
was  the  power  of  their  enemies  restricted  to  the  body,  but  their  very 
bodies  would  be  under  God’s  protection.  This  is  stated  in  a  very 
striking  form,  not  unlike  that  in  6,  26-30.  Beduced  to  ordinary  shape 
and  order,  the  argument  is  this,  that  as  God’s  protective  care  extends 
to  the  most  insignificant  and  worthless  of  the  feathered  tribe,  it  must 
and  does  extend  to  man,  and  will  especially  extend  to  those  who  have 
been  honoured  with  a  most  important  mission.  The  actual  order  of 
these  thoughts  is,  first,  the  little  value  of  the  sparrows,  as  indicated  by 
the  market  price,  two  being  sold  for  an  assarion^  a  coin  intermediate  in 


296 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  10,  29-33. 

value  between  our  cent  and  an  English  penny ;  then  the  care  of  which 
they  are  the  object.  JVot  one  (in  opposition  to  the  two  of  the  preceding 
clause)  shall  fall^  shall  ever  fall,  and  so  by  implication,  can  fall.  There 
is  no  need  of  giving  this  the  too  specific  meaning  of  falling  into  a  snare, 
or  of  falling  down  dead.  The  idea  is  more  general,  that  of  any  change 
occurring  to  them.  Without  your  father^  without  his  knowledge  and 
permission.  Your  father  again  brings  to  mind  their  filial  relation. 
He  who  thus  protects  the  sparrows  is  your  father. 

30.  But  the  very  hairs  of  your  head  are  all  numbered. 

31.  Fear  ye  not  therefore^  ye  are  of  more  value  than 
many  sparrows. 

This  is  a  strong  proverbial  expression  for  minute  knowledge  and 
exact  care.  The  hairs  are  numbered  for  the  purpose  of  protection  and 
careful  preservation,  so  that  if  one  be  wanting,  it  is  missed  and  looked 
for.  It  would  be  impossible  to  frame  in  human  language  a  more  forci¬ 
ble  description  of  unerring  oversight  and  sleepless  care.  V.  31  repeats 
the  exhortation  of  v.  26,  and  formally  propounds  the  reason  really  im¬ 
plied  in  the  preceding  verses,  namely,  the  argument  from  less  to  greater, 
that  as  God  takes  care  of  sparrows,  he  will  certainly  take  care  of 
Christ’s  apostles. 

32.  Whosoever  therefore  shall  confess  me  before  men, 
him  will  I  confess  also  before  my  Father  which  is  in 
heaven. 

33.  But  whosoever  shall  deny  me  before  men,  him  will 
I  also  deny  before  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven. 

Another  reason  for  discharging  their  commission  without  Tear  of 
man  is,  that  on  their  fidelity  in  so  doing  must  depend  their  treatment 
by  the  sovereign  who  commissioned  them.  Whosoever  therefore  is  in 
Greek  still  stronger,  every  (one)  therefore^  whosoever  (he  may  be),  as 
if  to  cut  off  all  exceptions  to  the  rule  here  laid  down.  Confess  me,, 
literally,  in  me,  which  appears  to  be  a  Hebrew  idiom,  like  the  one  in 
5,  34.  7, 2.  6  ;  or  the  preposition  may  indicate  the  subject  of  confession'^ 
with  respect  (or  in  regard)  to  me.  The  act  itself  is  that  of  owning 
Christ  as  Lord  and  Master,  with  particular  reference  to  the  twelve, 
who  were  to  go  forth  as  his  aids  and  representatives.  The  reciprocal 
act  ascribed  to  him  is  that  of  owning  as  his  follower,  disciple,  or  apos¬ 
tle.  (See  above,  on  7,  23,  where  the  disowning  act  is  itself  called  a 
confession.)  Before  my  father,  i.  e.  in  heaven,  not  on  earth  ;  or  at  the 
final  judgment ;  or  perhaps  more  generally,  in  the  most  public,  solemn 
manner.  V.  33  repeats  the  same  thing  in  the  same  words  with  respect 
to  the  denial  or  disowning  of  our  Lord’s  authority  by  word  or  deed. 


MATTHEW  10,  34-37. 


297 


34.  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  send  peace  on  earth : 

I  came  not  to  send  peace,  hut  a  sword. 

35.  For  I  am  come  to  set  a  man  at  variance  against  his 
father,  and  the  daughter  against  her  mother,  and  the 
daughter  in  law  against  her  mother  in  law. 

36.  And  a  man's  foes  (shall  he)  they  of  his  own  house¬ 
hold. 

Another  reason  for  not  shrinking  from  the  fear  of  human  opposi¬ 
tion  and  divisions,  is  that  these  are  not  mere  accidents  but  necessary 
consequences  of  the  promulgation  of  the  trhth,  and  therefore  to  be 
looked  for  and  manfully  encountered  by  its  advocates.  Think  not 
that  I  came^  the  same  form  of  expression  as  in  5, 17,  and  in  either  case 
implying  the  existence  of  a  disposition  so  to  think,  and  act  accordingly. 
Send  is  twice  used  to  translate  a  much  stronger  Greek  word  meaning 
throw  or  ca%t^  and  here  perhaps  intended  to  suggest  the  idea  of  coercion 
or  compulsion.  ‘  I  did  not  come  to  force  men  into  peace  and  harmony.’ 
But  this  can  hardly  be  the  meaning  in  the  last  clause  where  the  same 
word  governs  sioord.  Another  sense,  admissible  in  both  cases,  is  the 
figurative  one  of  casting,  violently  throwing.  The  antithetical  ideas  of 
peace  and  war  (or  strife)  are  very  differently  expressed,  the  one  liter- 
alljq  the  other  by  a  figure,  but  so  natural  and  common  as  scarcely  to  be 
metaphorical.  The  reference  is  not  to  the  legitimate  effects  of  Christ’s 
mission  on  the  character  and  hearts  of  men,  but  to  the  abnormal  con¬ 
sequences  of  their  alienation  and  resistance.  V.  35  is  an  amplification 
of  the  figurative  term  sioord^  as  denoting  separation  and  division  of  the 
tenderest  relations,  some  of  which  are  specified  with  antique  and  scrip¬ 
tural  simplicity  and  force.  The  word- translated  daughter-in-law 
properly  means  hride,  or  young  wife,  but  is  here  determined  to  a  more 
specific  sense  by  being  placed  in  opposition  to  one  meaning  mother-in- 
law,  the  same  that  is  translated  loife’s  mother  in  8,  14.  V.  36  is  a 
summing  up  of  the  previous  details  in  a  general  declaration,  that  the 
most  violent  hostilities  will  sometimes  exist  within  the  limits  of  a  sin¬ 
gle  household,  and  engendered  by  the  very  cause  which  ought  to  have 
prevented  them,  and  would  have  done  so  but  for  man’s  perverseness. 
This  fearful  picture  has  been  often  verified  in  actual  experience.  A 
man^s  should  be  the  manh^  i.  e.  those  of  the  man  who  faithfully  con¬ 
fesses  Christ.  They  of  his  own  household  (the  same  Greek  word  that 
occurs  in  v.  25),  namely,  those  just  mentioned,  not  another  class  to  be% 
added  to  them. 

37.  He  that  loveth  father  or  mother  more  than  me  is 
not  worthy  of  me  :  and  he  that  loveth  son  or  daughter 
more  than  me  is  not  worthy  of  me. 

13- 


298 


MATTHEW  10,  37.  38.  39. 


From  this  unavoidable  division  among  near  friends  on  the  most 
important  of  all  subjects  would  arise  the  painful  necessity  of  choos¬ 
ing  between  them  and  Christ,  and  this  would  furnish  an  unerring 
test  of  their  attachment  to  him,  which  in  order  to  be  genuine  must  be 
supreme.  The  principle  propounded  is  the  same  with  that  in  9,  22, 
but  in  a  form  more  general  and  absolute,  as  well  as  more  explicit  and 
unequivocal.  The  {one')  loving  father  or  mother^  here  correctly  given 
as  in  Greek  without  the  article  (see  above,  on  v.  21).  More  than  me, 
literally,  above  (beyond)  me.  Worthy  of  wze,  i.  e.  fit  to  be  my  follower 
or  disciple,  much  less  my  apostle  and  official  representative.  The 
same  thing  is  then  repeated  as  to  son  and  daughter,  the  parental  and 
filial  relations,  as  the  nearest  ties  of  nature,  being  put  for  every  other, 
such  as  those  of  marriage  and  remoter  kindred. 

* 

38.  And  lie  that  taketh  not  his  cross^  and  followeth 
after  me,  is  not  worthy  of  me. 

To  the  natural  affections  this  was  a  hard  saying,  and  might  seem  to 
ask  too  much  of  the  disciple,  since  in  many  cases  such  a  separation 
vmuld  amount  to  the  severest  punishment,  and  be  in  fact  a  sort  of 
lingering  death  like  that  of  crucifixion.  But  so  far  from  recognizing 
this  as  an  admissible  objection  or  a  valid  ground  of  disobedience, 
Christ  repeats  it  as  a  positive  command,  requiring  just  such  crucifixion 
as  a  duty  and  a  test  of  true  discipleship  whenever  circumstances  might 
demand  it.  Though  the  twelve  may  at  the  time  have  understood  this 
merely  as  a  beautiful  allusion  to  the  cross  as  an  instrument  of  torture, 
or  a  mode  of  execution  made  familiar  by  its  use  among  their  Roman 
masters,  we  can  now  see,  and  they  afterwards  no  doubt  saw  in  it,  a 
prophetic  reference  to  his  own  death  as  the  crown  and  consummation 
of  his  sufferings.  He  beholds  himself  as  a  convict  on  his  way  to  cruci¬ 
fixion  and  his  faithful  followers  bearing  the  cross  after  him.  Whoever 
is  not  ready  thus  to  share  his  sufferings,  even  at  the  cost  of  every  nat¬ 
ural  affection,  is  not  fit  to  be  considered  his  disciple. 

39.  He  tliat  findeth  liis  life  shall  lose  it  :  and  he  that 
loseth  his  life  for  my  sake  shall  find  it. 

A  faithful  acting  out  of  the  preceding  requisitions  might  result  in 
the  loss  of  life  itself  and  thus  defeat  the  very  object  of  discipleship. 
But  even  this  extreme  case  obtains  no  relaxation  of  the  rule  already 
laid  down.  Life  itself  is  not  to  be  valued  in  comparison  with  faithful- 
^ness  to  Christ,  but  abandoned  for  the  sake  of  it.  This  requisition  is  so 
utterly  repugnant  to  the  natural  love  of  life  that  it  might  seem  like  ex¬ 
horting  men  to  self-destruction.  In  reality  however  it  is  only  calling 
them  to  sacrifice  a  lesser  for  a  greater  good.  Lose  is  a  much  stronger 
word  in  Greek  and  means  destroy,,  the  true  antithesis  to  save  in  this  con¬ 
nection.  The  form  of  the  sentence  is  proverbial,  and,  as  in  many  other 
cases  of  the  same  kind,  uses  the  same  word  in  two  senses,  or  rather  in 
a  higher  and  a  lower  application  of  the  same  sense.  Life  is  the  correct 


299 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  10,  39.  40.  41. 

translation  in  both  clauses,  but  the  life  referred  to  very  different.  The 
{one)  finding  Ms  life  (i.  e.  his  natural  life,  or  the  life  of  his  body,  for 
its  own  sake,  as  the  highest  good  to  be  secured  or  sought)  will  (by 
that  very  act  not  only  lose  but)  destroy  it.  He  cannot  perpetuate  his 
life  on  earth,  and  by  refusing  to  look  higher,  forfeits  life  in  heaven. 
The  converse  is  then  stated  as  no  less  true  and  important.  The  {one) 
who  loses  or  destroys  (i.  e.  allow^s  to  be  destroyed  if  needful)  his  life 
(in  the  lower  sense  before  explained)  for  my  sake  (in  my  service  and 
at  my  command),  not  only  now  while  I  am  present  upon  earth,  but 
even  after  my  departure,  for  the  sake  of  the  gospel,  the  diffusion  of  the 
truth,  and  the  erection  of  my  kingdom,  he  shall  find  his  life  in  losing  it, 
or  only  lose  it  in  a  lower  sense  to  save  it  in  the  highest  sense  conceiv¬ 
able.  The  difficulty  of  distinguishing  precisely  between  life  and  life 
in  this  extraordinary  dictum  only  shows  that  the  difference  is  rather 
of  degree  than  kind,  and  instead  of  weakening  strengthens  the  im¬ 
pression. 

40.  He  that  receiveth  you  receiveth  me  ;  and  he  that 
receiveth  me  receiveth  him  that  sent  me. 

Having  been  led  by  a  natural  association  into  the  previous  dis¬ 
course  as  to  the  test  of  true  discipleship,  our  Lord  reverts  in  conclu¬ 
sion  to  the  principle  laid  down  in  vs.  24,  25,  that  what  they  did  and 
suffered  was  as  his  representatives,  and  as  identified  with  him.  This 
is  here  applied  to  the  authority  with  which  they  were  to  speak  and  act 
as  his  apostles,  and  the  duty  of  receiving  them  as  such.  It  is  carried 
further  than  before,  however,  by  applying  the  same  principle  to  Christ’s 
own  ministry  as  one  of  delegated  powers,  so  that  they  who  acknowl¬ 
edged  his  apostles  not  only  owned  their  commission  as  being  sent  from 
him,  but  his  commission  as  being  sent  from  God. 

41.  He  that  receiveth  a  projohet  in  the  name  of  a 
pro]3het  shall  receive  a  prophet's  reward  ;  and  he  that  re¬ 
ceiveth  a  righteous  man  in  the  name  of  a  righteous  man 
shall  receive  a  righteous  man's  reward. 

There  are  two  interpretations  of  this  verse  and  its  connection  with 
the  one  before  it.  Some  regard  it  as  a  mere  continuation  of  the  prom¬ 
ise,  and  the  words  prophet  and  righteous  man  as  epithets  applied  to 
the  apostles.  Others  make  it  an  allusion  to  some  well-known  maxim 
or  proverbial  saying.  As  he  that  receives  a  prophet  is  to  have  a 
prophet’s  reward,  so  he  that  gives  to  drink,  &c.  There  is  also  some 
obscurity  and  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  a  prophet’s  reward  and  a 
righteous  man’s  reward.  It  may  mean,  shall  be  rewarded  by  the 
prophet  or  the  ri'ghteous  man  whom  he  receives,  i.  e.  shall  reap  the 
benefit  of  so  receiving  him.  Or  it  may  mean,  shall  be  regarded  as 
possessing  the  same  character  with  him  whom  he  receives.  The  word 
receive  is  here  used  to  translate  two  different  Greek  verbs,  the  one  de¬ 
noting  active  recognition,  the  other  passive  reception. 


300 


MATTHEW  10,42. 


42.  And  whosoever  shall  give  to  drink  unto  one  of 
these  little  ones  a  cup  of  cold  (water)  only  in  the  name 
of  a  disciple,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  he  shall  in  no  wise 
lose  he  reward. 

The  most  trifling  acts  of  kindness  to  themselves  on  his  account,  ho 
himself  would  note,  and  as  it  were  acknowledge.  For  whosoever  shall 
(whoever  may)  give  to  drin\  a  single  word  in  Greek,  analogous  to  our 
verb  to  water ^  but  derived  from  the  noun  drinlc,  and  applied  both  to 
plants  (by  Xenophon)  and  to  men  (by  Plato).  From  the  same  root 
comes  the  following  noun,  cup^  or  any  drinking  vessel,  the  same  word 
that  is  used  in  Mark  7,  4.  8,  and  there  explained.  A  cup  (or  l)Owl)  of 
water  is  here  mentioned  as  the  cheapest  of  all  bodily  refreshments,  and 
therefore  suitable  to  represent  the  smallest  acts  of  kindness  done  by 
man  to  man.  Verily  (Amen)  I  say  unto  you,,  implying  that  what 
follows  is  a  certain  and  a  solemn  truth.  He  shall  not,,  a  particularly 
strong  form  of  negation,  being  that  employed  in  5,  18,  and  there  ex¬ 
plained.  His  reward,  i.  c.  the  benefit  of  such  regard  to  Christ, 
proved  by  kindness  to  his  followers.  The  doctrine  of  legal  merit  is 
no  more  involved  in  this  expression  than  in  the  many  passages  which 
teach  that  men  are  to  be  dealt  with  in  proportion  to  their  works, 
although  salvation  is  entirely  gratuitous. 


CHAPTEE  XL 


It  was  very  important,  in  any  history  of  our  Lord’s  official  life,  to  de¬ 
fine  his  position  with  respect  to  John  the  Baptist.  This  had  been 
done,  at  an  early  period  of  the  narrative,  so  far  as  the  beginning  of  his 
ministry  was  concerned  (4, 12),  and  also  with  respect  to  certain  doc¬ 
trines  or  practices  of  John’s  disciples  (9,  14).  But  as  John’s  life  lasted 
longer  than  his  ministry,  and  as  he  had  some  further  intercourse  with 
Christ,  it  was  important  that  their  mutual  relation  should  be  clearly 
pointed  out  before  John’s  final  disappearance  from  the  scene.  To  do 
this  may  be  fairly  represented  as  the  object  of  the  passage  compre¬ 
hended  in  this  chapter.  After  a  sentence  which  is  properly  the  close 
of  the  preceding  chapter  (1),  we  have  first  John’s  message  from  the 
prison  and  Christ’s  answer  (2-C) ;  then  a  discourse  to  the  people,  in 
which  John’s  position  is  defined  and  his  character  described  (7-15) ; 
then  a  parabolical  description  of  the  way  in  which  their  several  min¬ 
istries  had  been  received  (16-19).  The  unity  of  subject,  and  most 
probably  of  time,  in  this  whole  narrative  is  undisputed.  Its  connection 
with  what  follows,  although  not  so  obvious,  is  no  less  real.  The  min¬ 
istry  of  John,  though  without  miraculous  credentials  (John  10,  41), 


MATTHEW  11,1. 


301 


left  the  people  inexcusable  who  did  not  receive  him ;  how  much  more 
the  ministry  of  Christ,  with  all  its  glorious  attestations,  to  reject 
which  was  to  court  a  doom  beyond  that  of  the  most  corrupted  heathen 
(20-24).  That  any  should  continue  blind,  while  others  saw  the  great 
light,  was  a  mystery  of  human  depravity  and  of  divine  sovereignty 
(25-27).  in  view  of  which  the  Saviour  earnestly  and  tenderly  invites 
those  groaning  under  legal  bondage,  whether  ceremonial  or  moral,  to 
exchange  it  for  his  salutary  and  delightful  service  (28-30). 


1.  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Jesus  had  made  an  end 
of  commanding  his  twelve  disciples,  he  departed  thence  to 
teach  and  to  preach  in  their  cities. 

The  conventional  division  of  the  text  is  as  injudicious  here  as  in 
the  case  of  ch.  ix.,  and  with  the  same  effect,  that  of  confusing  the 
chronology  by  making  this  verse  give  the  date  or  fix  the  time  of  what 
immediately  follows ;  whereas  it  is  the  natural  conclusion  of  what  goes 
before,  and  the  next  verse  opens  an  entirely  new  subject,  without  any 
mark  of  time  whatever,  and  therefore  without  any  contradiction  of 
Luke’s  more  chronological  arrangement,  which  puts  the  message  of 
John  the  Baptist  early  in  the  narrative.  The  verse  before  us  is  a 
winding  up  of  the  preceding  chapter  by  the  statement  that  our  Lord, 
after  organizing  and  commissioning  the  twelve,  did  not  allow  that 
act  to  interrupt  his  own  itinerant  labours,  but  as  soon  as  he  finish¬ 
ed  charging  or  instructing  them  (a  military  term  in  Greek,  originally 
denoting  the  array  and  disposition  of  armed  forces),  he  passed  on  thence^ 
i.  e.  from  the  place  where  these  instructions  were  delivered,  and  which 
cannot  now  be  ascertained,  though  commonly  supposed  to  be  Caper¬ 
naum  or  its  neighbourhood.  (See  below,  on  v.  20.)  The  design  of 
this  departure  was  not  rest  but  labour,  to  teach  and  preachy  or,  as  the 
Greek  construction  necessarily  suggests,  (for  the  purpose)  of  teaching 
and  preaching^  or  proclaiming  and  announcing  the  Messiah’s  kingdom 
(see  above,  on  3,  1.  4,  17.  23.  9,  35),  in  their  towns  (or  cities)^  i.  e. 
those  of  Galilee,  the  antecedent  of  the  pronoun,  although  not  express¬ 
ed,  being  readily  supplied  from  the  whole  preceding  narrative,  and 
more  particularly  from  the  previous  descriptions  of  his  ministry  in 
4,  23  and  9,  35,  where  the  same  form  of  expression  is  employed,  a  cir¬ 
cumstance  which  shows  that  the  writer  here  reverts  to  those  descrip¬ 
tions  of  our  Lord’s  itinerant  labours,  as  the  great  theme  of  his  narra¬ 
tive,  which  all  the  intervening  statements  were  intended  to  illustrate 
and  exemplify.  This  verse  is  therefore  an  important  one,  when  re¬ 
placed  in  its  true  position  with  respect  to  the  preceding  chapter,  both 
as  giving  oneness  and  coherence  to  the  whole  composition,  and  as 
showing  that,  although  the  twelve  were  chosen  and  sent  forth  as  aids  and 
representatives  of  Christ  in  his  announcement  of  the  new  dispensation, 
they  were  not  intended  to  diminish,  and  did  not  in  point  of  fact  dimin¬ 
ish  in  the  least  his  own  incessant  and  exhausting  labours. 


302 


MATTHEW  11,2. 

2.  Now  wlien  Joliii  had  heard  in  the  prison  the  works 
of  Christ,  he  sent  two  of  his  disciples, 

The  bad  effect  of  the  unfortunate  division  of  the  chapters  is  dimin¬ 
ished.  although  not  entirely  removed,  in  the  English  version  by  the 
use  of  the  word  now^  suggesting  a  transition,  or  the  introduction  of  a 
new  subject,  though  the  Greek  word  is  only  the  usual  connective  {he) 
elsewhere  rendered  and  or  hut,  and  so  translated  here  in  all  the  older 
English  versions,  except  Tyndale  and  Cranmer,  who  omit  it  altogether, 
making  the  transition  still  more  marked  and  even  sudden.  It  is  very 
important  that  the  reader  should  observe  this  relation  of  the  verses, 
and  should  understand  the  second  not  as  saying,  that  John  then,  i.  e. 
after  the  mission  and  instruction  of  the  twelve,  sent  two  of  his  dis¬ 
ciples,  but  that  he  did  so  once,  or  on  a  certain  occasion,  not  exactly 
specified,  but  really  anterior  in  date  to  the  contents  of  the  preceding 
chapter.  There  is  nothing  incorrect  in  this  departure  from  the  strict 
chronological  order,  or  at  variance  with  the  practice  of  the  best  his¬ 
torians,  when  their  purpose  is  not  simply  to  detail  events  precisely  as 
they  happened,  but  to  bring  together  illustrations  and  examples  of 
some  interesting  topic,  just  as  Matthew  here  defines  our  Lord’s  posi¬ 
tion  with  respect  to  John  the  Baptist,  by  recording  facts  which  might 
have  been  introduced  earlier  or  later,  but  are  no  doubt  in  their  proper 
place  with  reference  to  his  plan  and  purpose,  or  at  least  to  that  divine 
discretion  in  the  exercise  of  which  he  placed  them  where  they  are  and 
where  we  find  them.*  Having  lieard^  through  the  report  of  his  dis¬ 
ciples  (Luke  7,  18),  in  the ‘prison,  i.  e.  as  we  learn  from  Josephus,  the 
fortress  of  Machserus  on  the  border  of  Perea  and  the  desert.  The  fact 
of  John’s  imprisonment  had  been  already  mentioned  in  connection  with 
the  opening  of  Christ’s  Galilean  ministry  (4,  12),  but  without  the  par¬ 
ticulars,  which  are  given  afterwards  in  speaking  of  his  death  (14,  3). 
The  ivorks^  i.  e.  the  miracles  (Luke  7, 18),  of  Christy  not  of  Jesus  as  a 
private  person,  but  of  the  Messiah^  which  he  claimed  to  be,  appealing 
to  these  very  works  in  proof  of  his  pretensions  (John  10,  38.  14, 
11.  15,  24).  The  meaning  then  is,  that  John  heard  in  prison  of 
miraculous  performances  appearing  and  purporting  to  be  wrought  by 
the  Messiah.  His  disciples,  those  who  still  adhered  to  him  after  his 
mission  had  been  merged  in  that  of  Christ  himself,  whom  they  refused 
to  acknowledge  as  superior  to  John  in  opposition  to  his  own  most 
solemn  declarations.  (See  above,  on  3,  11.  14.  9,  14,  and  compare 
John  1,  20.  3,  25-30.)  This  fact  betra3'’S  an  obstinate  persistency  in 
error,  inconsistent  with  right  religious  feeling,  and  deprives  these  dis¬ 
ciples  of  all  title  to  the  honour  which  some  would  put  upon  them,  as 
sincerely  pious  and  as  almost  Christians.  It  also  favours  the  opinion, 
which  has  been  the  common  one  since  Hilary  and  Chrysostom,  that 
this  message  was  intended  to  remove  their  doubts,  and  not  to  satisfy 

*  Instead  of  two  {bvo)  the  oldest  manuscripts  and  latest  critics  read  through 

{hid)  Ms  disciples,  the  number  being  known  from  Luke  7, 18,  to  which,  it  is  sup¬ 
posed,  the  verse  before  us  was  assimilated  by  some  ancient  copyists. 


303 


MATTHEW  11,2.3. 

the  mind  of  John  himself.  There  would,  it  is  true,  be  no  absurdity  in 
holding  that  his  faith  was  shaken  for  a  moment  in  captivity,  not  as  to 
the  person  of  the  true  Messiah,  which  had  been  divinely  indicated  to 
his  very  senses  (see  above,  on  3,  16.  17,  and  compare  John  1,  32.  33), 
but  as  to  his  method  of  proceeding,  so  remote  from  the  usages  and  as¬ 
sociations  of  the  old  economy,  of  which  John  was  a  minister.  The  possi¬ 
bility  of  such  misgivings  is  enhanced  if  we  suppose  that  John’s  inspira¬ 
tion  ceased  with  his  official  work  for  which  it  was  intended  to  prepare 
him  (Luke  1,  80.  3,  2).  There  is  still,  however,  something  in  the  tone 
of  this  inquiry,  if  expressive  of  John’s  own  doubts,  that  can  scarcely 
be  reconciled  with  his  strong  and  almost  passionate  asseverations  of  his 
own  inferiority  already  cited.  The  necessity  of  all  such  undesirable  as¬ 
sumptions  is  precluded  by  the  ancient  and  prevailing  supposition,  just 
referred  to,  that  the  message  was  intended  to  remove  the  doubts  of  his 
disciples,  or  to  bring  them  into  contact  with  our  Lord  himself,  and  thus 
afford  an  opportunity  of  showing  them  the  signs  of  the  Messiah,  as  he  ac¬ 
tually  did  on  this  occasion.  The  objections  to  this  view  of  the  transac¬ 
tion,  although  not  without  weight,  are  entirely  inconclusive.  The  ap¬ 
parent  insincerity  of  asking  such  a  question  in  his  own  name  when  he 
knew  the  truth  already,  may  be  either  ascribed  to  the  conciseness  of  the 
record,  which  has  not  preserved  all  the  explanatory  circumstances,  or 
defended  as  a  lawful  means  of  bringing  his  disciples  into  contact  with 
the  object  of  their  sceptical  and  envious  misgivings.  (See  John  3,  26.) 
Though  unwilling  to  resort  to  Christ  as  inquirers  in  their  own  behalf] 
they  might  consent  to  carry  what  appeared  to  be  a  challenge  and  ex¬ 
postulation  from  their  master.  There  is  still  less  force  in  the  objection, 
that  John  would  not  have  sent  them  to  ask  Jesus  what  he  could  have 
told  them  still  more  easily  himself.  He  had  already  told  them,  but 
without  effect,  and  he  now  wished  to  convince  them,  not  by  the  words 
of  Jesus  merely,  but  by  the  “  works  of  Christ.” 

3.  And  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  he  that  should  come, 
or  do  we  look  for  another  ? 

Said,  through  his  messengers,  a  form  of  speech  common  in  all  lan¬ 
guages,  and  throwing  light  upon  the  difference  between  Luke  and  Mat¬ 
thew  in  the  case  of  the  centurion’s  servant.  (See  above,  on  8,  5.) 
Art  thou  the  {one)  coming,  he  whose  coming  has  for  ages  been  expect¬ 
ed  ?  This  appears  to  have  become  almost  a  proper  name  of  the  Mes¬ 
siah.  (See  above,  on  3, 11,  and  compare  John  11,27.)  Bo  we  tool? 
is  Cranmer’s  just  correction  of  Tyndale’s  loose  translation,  shall  toe 
loolc?  The  contracted  form  in  Greek  {wpoaboKMiiep)  may  be  either 
subjunctive  or  indicative,  and  if  the  former,  might  be  rendered  may  (or 
must)  we  loolc,  ?  But  by  far  the  simplest  and  most  natural  construc¬ 
tion,  and  at  the  same  time  the  most  striking,  is  the  usual  one,  are  we 
looking?  i  e.  is  it  for  another  (not  for  thee)  that  we  are  looking? 
The  phrase  to  loolc  for  is  equivocal  in  English,  being  used  to  express 
the  very  different  ideas  of  search  and  expectation.  The  lattty  pre¬ 
dominates  in  early  usage,  and  is  here  required  by  the  unambiguous 


304 


MATTHEW  11,  3-6. 


original.  The  sentence  becomes  still  more  pointed  if  we  take  another 
in  the  strong  sense  of  the  Greek  word  (erepov),  as  strictly  meaning  of 
a  different  kind,  another  sort,  although  in  general  and  later  usage,  it 
denotes  mere  numerical  difference  (like  aXXos).  The  spirit  of  the 
question  is,  ‘  art  thou  indeed  the  Messiah,  whose  appearance  Israel  has 
so  long  expected  2  ’ 

4.  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  tliem,  Gio  and  show 
John  again  those  things  which  ye  do  hear  and  see  : 

Instead  of  a  direct  and  categorical  reply  in  words,  our  Lord  refers 
them  to  the  testimony  of  their  own  senses,  with  a  tacit  reference  to 
the  prophecies  which  represent  the  Messiah  as  a  wonder-worker  (such 
as  Isai.  35,  5.  6.  61, 1,  &c.).  The  answer  is  addressed  to  John,  from 
whom  the  question  came,  and  therefore  can  determine  nothing  as  to  its 
true  motive. 

5.  The  blind  receive  their  sight,  and  the  lame  walk, 
the  lepers  are  cleansed,  and  the  deaf  hear,  the  dead  are 
raised  up,  and  the  poor  have  the  gospel  preached  to  them. 

This  is  a  mere  specification  of  the  {things)  which  ye  hear  and  see^ 
not  exhaustive  but  illustrative  by  means  of  a  few  signal  instances.  The 
raising  of  the  dead  may  have  been  among  the  miracles  they  actually 
witnessed,  or  the  reference  may  be  to  the  resuscitation  of  the  widow’s 
son  at  Nain,  which  in  Luke  (7, 11-17)  immediately  precedes  the  nar¬ 
rative  before  us,  and  appears  to  be  included  among  “  all  these  things  ” 
which  John’s  disciple  reported  to  him  (ib.  v.  18).  It  is  hardly  natural, 
however,  to  apply  the  verb  hear  in  v.  4  to  the  report  of  this  and  other 
miracles  not  actually  seen  by  the  disciples,  since  it  rather  has  respect 
to  what  is  mentioned  in  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  before  us.  The 
poor  are  erangelized,  a  most  expressive  phrase,  which  has  been  vari¬ 
ously  rendered :  the  glad  tidings  is  preached  to  the  poor  (Tyndale) — 
the  poor  receive  the  gospel  (Geneva) — the  poor  receive  the  glad  tidings 
of  the  gospel  (Oranraer) — to  the  poor  the  gospel  is  preached  (Rheims). 
Wiclif’s  version  {poor  men  be  tahen  to  preaching  of  the  gospel)  seems 
to  be  founded  on  Theophylact’s  construction  of  the  Greek  verb  as  a 
neuter  or  deponent  not  a  passive ;  the  poor  preach  the  gospel,  which, 
however,  would  not  be  insisted  on  as  something  new  or  strange,  and  is 
besides  at  variance  with  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  prophecy  referred 
to  (sec  Isaiah  61, 1),  where  the  Septuagint  has  the  phrase  {evayy^Xt- 
crda^ai  TTrcoyoiy).  Toor  is  here  to  be  taken  in  its  pregnant  and  pecu¬ 
liar  Hebrew  or  Old  Testament  meaning,  as  expressive,  not  of  mere  ex¬ 
ternal  destitution,  but  of  that  humility  and  sense  of  spiritual  want 
which  such  a  state  often  docs  and  always  should  engender.  (See  above, 
on  poor  in  spirit,  5,  3.) 

6  And  blessed  is  (be),  whosoever  shall  not  be  offend¬ 
ed  in  me. 


MATTHEW  11,6.7. 


305 


This  is  a  part  of  the  reply,  and  not  a  mere  reflection  added  to  it.  It 
states  a^general  truth,  leaving  the  application  to  the  hearer  or  receiver. 
It  proves  nothing  as  to  John’s  intention  or  his  state  of  mind,  which 
must  be  determined,  if  at  all,  on  other  grounds  already  mentioned. 
(See  above,  on  v.  1.)  The  words  apply  to  John  himself,  if  his  own 
faith  wavered,  but  only  upon  that  supposition.  They  are  equally  ap¬ 
propriate  to  his  disciples,  if  the  message  was  intended  for  their  benefit. 
Blessed^  truly  fortunate  or  happy,  with  particular  reference  to  the  di¬ 
vine  favour.  (See  above,  on  5,  3.)  Whosoever^  a  contingent  expres¬ 
sion,  not  necessarily  implying  that  any  one  had  actually  been,  but  sim¬ 
ply  that  some  one  might  hereafter  be  offended,  not  in  the  popular  or 
modern  sense,  displeased^  but  in  the  old  sense,  stumbled,^  made  to  fall, 
i.  e.  betrayed  into  sin  and  error.  (See  above,  on  5,  29.  30.)  In  me 
(Geneva),  not  by  me  (Tyndale,  Cranmer),  but  in  reference  to  me  as  an 
occasion  or  example.  (For  a  like  use  of  the  same  preposition,  com¬ 
pare  Acts  4,  2.)  This,  though  in  form  a  beatitude  or  blessing,  similar 
to  those  at  the  beginning  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (5,  3-11).  is,  in 
substance  and  reality,  a  solemn  warning  against  unbelief  in  the  Mes- 
siahship  of  Jesus.  At  the  same  time,  there  is  something  truly  admira¬ 
ble  in  the  skill  and  delicacy,  if  we  may  apply  such  terms  to  the  divine 
and  gracious  wisdom,  with  which  Christ  here  treats  the  scruples  and 
misgivings,  whether  of  John  himself  or  of  his  sceptical  disciples. 
"Without  upbraiding,  such  as  he  employed  soon  after  against  open  un¬ 
believers  (see  below,  on  vs.  20-24),  without  even  reasoning  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  error  which  he  has  in  view,  he  practically  takes 
away  its  very  basis,  and  benevolently  warns  against  its  ruinous  re¬ 
sults^ 

7.  And  as  they  departed,  Jesus  began  to  say  unto  the 
multitudes  concerning  John,  What  went  ye  out  into  the 
wilderness  to  see  ?  A  reed  shaken  with  the  wind  ? 

Having  sent  this  answer  to  John’s  question,  he  proceeds  to  guard 
against  all  false  conclusions  from  it,  as  if  John’s  testimony  had  been 
now  retracted.  This  he  does  by  showing  that  John  was  neither  a  ca¬ 
pricious  humourist  nor  a  flattering  parasite,  but  an  eminent  prophet, 
and  himself  a  subject  of  prophecy,  belonging  indeed  to  the  old  dispen¬ 
sation,  but  the  harbinger  and  herald  of  the  new.  As  they  departed 
(Tyndale),  literally,  they  departing^  i.  e.  just  as  they  were  gone  or  go¬ 
ing,  so  as  neither  to  appear  to  flatter  John  through  his  disciples,  nor  to 
leave  him  for  a  moment  in  a  false  position  before  the  people.  Began 
is  not  a  pleonasm,  but  a  natural  expression  of  immediate  action  conse¬ 
quent  upon  another.  No  sooner  had  he  finished  his  reply  to  John 
than  he  began  his  vindication  of  him.  To  the  multitudes  or  croicds, 
not  merely  the  great  numbers,  but  the  mixed  promiscuous  assemblage, 
in  whose  presence  he  had  answered  John’s  inquiry,  and  among  whom 
there  were  many  who  might  either  take  advantage  of  this  message  to 
invalidate  John’s  well-known  testimony  to  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus, 
or  be  led  by  others  into  such  a  misconstruction  of  it.  Here  again  the 


30G 


MxVTTIlEW  1L7. 


wisdom  of  the  Master  is  conspicuous.  Instead  of  positive  assertion, 
he  appeals  to  their  own  vivid  recollections  of  the  time,  when  the  whole 
population  had  gone  out  into  the  wilderness  adjacent  to  the  Dead  Sea 
and  the  Jordan,  to  see  and  hear  the  very  man  who  now  lay  captive  in 
Machmrus.  What  went  ye  out  to  see?  refers  not  so  much  to  their 
previous  expectation  as  to  their  actual  experience,  and  is  tantamount 
to  saying,  ‘  What  did  you  see  when  jmu  went  out  into  the  wilder¬ 
ness  ?  ’  The  word  translated  see  is  not  the  one  commonly  so  rendered, 
but  that  employed  in  6, 1,  and  denoting  (as  the  etymon  of  theatre^ 
theatrical^  &c.)  a  more  curious  and  eager  gaze  or  contemplation.  As 
if  he  had  said,  ‘  What  spectacle  or  show  did  you  go  oiit  to  witness  ?  ’ 
The  question  in  the  last  clause  is  a  virtual  negation,  ‘  Surely  not  a 
reed,’  &c.  There  are  two  interpretations  of  the  words  themselves,  one 
of  which  supposes  a  reed  shalcen  loith  the  wind  (or  more  exactly, 
wind)  to  be  referred  to  merely  as  an  ordinary  product  of  the  desert  of 
Judea,  in  one  of  its  usual  conditions.  The  meaning  then  is,  that  they 
surely  had  not  gone  out  in  such  numbers  to  the  wilderness  merely  to 
see  its  rustling  reeds,  which  were  always  there  and  never  worth  see¬ 
ing.  It  is  therefore  equivalent  to  saying,  that  they  surely  had  not 
gone  for  nothing  or  without  a  motive.  The  objection  to  this  explana¬ 
tion  is,  not  that  the  sense  "which  it  affords  is  tame  or  flat,  on  which 
point  tastes  may  naturally  differ,  but  that  it  is  not  in  keeping  with  tlie 
positive  description  in  the  next  verse,  which  is  evidently  meant  to  be 
applied  to  J ohn ;  and  that  it  makes  this  verse  irrelevant  and  useless 
as  a  part  of  our  Lord’s  argument  to  prove  that  John’s  testimony  to 
him  had  not  been  retracted  or  invalidated  by  his  recent  message. 
This  required  something  more  to  sustain  it  than  the  bare  fac^that 
they  went  out  to  see  something,  or  that  John  was  not  a  mere  nonen¬ 
tity  or  commonplace  familiar  object.  It  required  an  assertion  of  the 
fact  that  he  was  not  a  fickle,  wavering,  unstable  character,  who  said  and 
unsaid,  or  who  now  said  one  thing,  now  another.  This  is  finely  ex¬ 
pressed,  and  in  a  way  peculiarly  adapted  to  impress  an  Oriental  au¬ 
dience,  by  a  figure  borrowed  from  the  very  locality  in  question.  ‘  When 
you  went  into  the  wilderness  you  surely  did  not  find  there  one  who 
wavered  like  its  own  reeds  agitated  by  the  wind.’  With  divine  art  he 
leaves  them  to  apply  the  metaphor  to  John,  who  was  notoriously  any 
thing  but  such  a  reed,  who  on  the  contrary  was  well  known  to  be  firm, 
unbending,  and  unsparing  in  the  work  of  his  great  office.  The  inference 
suggested,  although  not  expressed,  is  that  John  was  not  the  man  to 
retract  an  attestation  so  deliberately,  solemnly,  repeatedly  afforded. 
His  message  therefore  could  not  be  intended  to  invalidate  his  former 
testimony.  All  this  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  supposition  that 
John’s  question  was  expressive  of  his  own  misgivings,  if  these  related 
only  to  Christ’s  method  of  proceeding,  and  not  to  his  personal  identity 
as  the  Messiah,  of  which  John  had  been  so  clear  and  so  definite  a  wit¬ 
ness.  At  the  same  time,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  language  of  the 
verse  before  us,  although  not  irreconcilable  with  this  hypothesis,  is 
far  more  favourable  to  the  other,  namely,  that  the  message  was  de¬ 
signed  to  solve  the  doubts  of  those  wLo  bore  it,  not  of  John  himself. 


307 


MATTHEW  11,7-10. 

Scarcely  one  in  a  thousand  of  unbiassed  readers  would  be  led  sponta¬ 
neously  to  make  the  nice  distinction  between  our  Lord’s  Messiahship 
and  jMessianic  working,  or  to  understand  him  as  admitting  that  John 
had  experienced  a  lapse  of  faith  as  to  the  latter,  and  only  denying  such 
a  lapse  as  to  the  former. 

8.  But  wliat  went  ye  out  for  to  see  ?  A  man  clotlied 
in  soft  raiment  ?  behold  they  that  wear  soft  (clothing)  are 
in  kings'  houses. 

Supposing  the  question  in  v.  7  to  be  answered  in  the  negative,  he 
now  puts  an  alternative  interrogation.  But,  if  not  a  reed  shaken  by 
the  wind,  what  loent  ye  out  to  see,  or  what  did  you  see  when  you  went 
out  on  that  occasion?  A  man  dressed  in  soft  (i.  e.  luxurious)  clothes, 
the  very  opposite  to  John’s  dress,  as  described  in  3,  4.  That  the  refer¬ 
ence,  however,  is  not  merely  to  ascetic  and  indulgent  habits,  is  appa¬ 
rent  from  the  next  clause.  Behold,  an  expression  of  surprise  at  the 
thought  of  finding  such  men  in  the  wilderness.  The  place  to  seek 
them  is  the  royal  court,  mentioned  either  in  the  general  as  the  most 
luxurious  form  of  human  society,  or  with  specific  reference  to  the 
court  of  Herod.  This  suggests  the  idea  of  a  courtier,  proverbially 
akin  to  those  of  parasite  and  flatterer,  a  second  character  denied  to 
John.  As  he  was  not  a  fickle  changeling,  blown  about  by  every 
wind  (Eph.  4,  14),  neither  was  he  a  polite  and  courtly  flatterer,  whose 
testimony,  given  from  an  interested  motive,  was  withdrawn  or  contra¬ 
dicted  when  that  motive  ceased  to  operate.  On  neither  of  these  pre¬ 
texts  was  there  any  ground  for  questioning  the  truth  or  the  continued 
force  of  John’s  attestation  of  the  claims  of  Jesus. 

9.  But  what  went  ye  out  for  to  see  ?  A  prophet  ? 
yea,  I  say  unto  you,  and  more  than  a  prophet. 

Both  the  foregoing  questions  being  negatived,  a  third  hypothesis  is 
now  presented.  But,  if  not  a  courtier,  what  then  ?  What  did  you 
see  when  you  went  out  into  the  wilderness  ?  Discarding  all  ironical 
suggestions,  he  now  anticipates  the  real  universal  answer  to  the  ques¬ 
tion,  ‘We  went  out  to  see  a  prophet.’  This  he  repeats  in  the  form  of 
an  interrogation,  as  if  about  to  question  or  deny  it — ‘  A  prophet  (do 
you  say)  ?  ’  but  only  for  the  purpose  of  a  more  emphatic  affirmation. 
Yea,  yes,  most  true ;  and  what  you  thus  say  to  me,  I  say  to  you  in 
turn,  and  add  to  it  what  you  cannot  say  with  authority  as  I  do,  {some¬ 
thing)  more,  literally,  more  abundant,  more  excessive  than  a  prophet. 

10.  For  this  is  (he),  of  whom  it  is  written.  Behold,  I 
send  my  messenger  before  thy  face,  which  shall  prepare 
thy  way  before  thee. 

He  was  not  only  a  prophet  but  a  subject  of  prophecy,  whose  ad- 


308 


MATTHEW  11,10.11. 


vent  was  predicted  at  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament  canon.  Thu  is 
he^  or  this  it  is,  of  (about,  concerning)  lohom  it  is  iDritten^  literall}^  has 
heen  written,  in  the  perfect  passive,  a  peculiarly  expressive  form,  im¬ 
plying  not  only  the  existence  of  the  passage  and  its  ancient  date,  but 
its  having  been  for  ages  upon  record.  (See  above,  on  2,  5.)  We  have 
here  a  most  authoritative  declaration  as  to  the  meaning  and  fulfilment 
of  a  prophecy  still  extant  in  the  Hebrew  text  of  Malachi  (3,  1),  and 
here  quoted  in  a  form  varying,  not  only  from  the  Septuagint  version, 
but  from  the  original,  without  change,  however,  of  essential  meaning. 
The  words  are  here  addressed  to  the  Messiah  himself  as  a  pledge  or 
promise,  which  though  not  expressed,  is  really  implied  in  the  original. 
I  send,  am  sending  or  about  to  send,  the  verb  from  which  apostle  is  de¬ 
rived,  and  suggesting  (as  in  10, 16)  the  idea  of  a  public  and  official,  not  a 
personal  or  private  mission.  My  messenger,  the  Greek  word  commonly 
translated  angel  (which  is  a  mere  abbreviation  or  corruption  of  it),  but 
here  used  in  its  primary  and  wider  sense.  The  original  passage  pre¬ 
dicts  the  advent  of  two  messengers  or  angels,  the  Angel  of  the  Cove¬ 
nant,  also  represented  as  the  Lord  of  the  Temple,  and  another  who 
was  to  prepare  his  way  before  him.  These  two  are  here  identified,  the 
one  expressly  and  the  other  by  necessary  implication,  with  our  Lord 
and  his  forerunner.  Before  thy  face  is  not  in  the  original ;  before  thee 
there  is  literally  to  my  face,  in  the  first  person.  Prepare,  an  express¬ 
ive  Greek  verb  meaning  to  make  fully  ready,  to  equip,  to  furnish. 
Thy  way,  thy  advent  or  appearance.  The  for  at  the  beginning  intro¬ 
duces  this  quotation  as  a  proof  that  John  was  more  than  a  prophet, 
i.  e.  more  than  any  other  that  preceded  him  because  standing  nearest 
to  the  time  of  the  fulfilment,  and  as  being  the  immediate  precursor  of 
Messiah. 

11.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Among  them  that  are  horn 
of  women  there  hath  not  risen  a  greater  than  John  the 
Baptist :  notwithstanding,  he  that  is  least  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  is  greater  than  he. 

Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  prepares  the  hearer  and  the  reader  for  a 
still  stronger  statement,  one  that  in  itself  might  seem  to  savour  of  ex¬ 
aggeration,  and  could  therefore  only  become  credible  by  being  uttered 
with  divine  authority.  (See  above,  on  5,  18.  26.  6, 2.  5. 13. 16.  8  ,10.) 
The  paradoxical  assertion  thus  enforced  is,  that  John  was  not  only 
more  than  a  prophet,  but  equal  to  the  greatest  among  men,  not  in  per¬ 
sonal  qualities,  however,  but  simply  by  position,  from  the  rank  as¬ 
signed  him  in  the  history  of  the  church  and  of  the  world.  There  has 
not  arisen,  or  been  raised  up,  called  into  existence  (see  below,  on  24, 11, 
and  compare  John  7,  52).  This  is  the  first  clause  of  the  sentence  in 
Greek  and  in  most  versions,  the  needless  transposition  in  our  Bible 
being  introduced  by  Tyndale.  Among,  literally  in  (i.  e.  the  number 
or  the  midst  of)  the  (or  those)  born  of  women,  an  idiomatic  phrase  for 
mankind  or  the  human  race,  the  plural  of  one  several  times  occurring 


MATTHEW  11,11.12. 


309 


in  the  book  of  Job.*  A  greater  (jnan  or  person)^  or  (^one)  greater^ 
i.  e.  one  more  highly  honoured  bj^  his  relative  position  with  respect 
to  Christ  himself.  But^  notwithstanding  this  exalted  rank  and  unsur¬ 
passed  pre-eminence.  The  superlative  term  least  is  one  of  the  few 
groundless  innovations  introduced  by  the  translators  of  King  James’s 
Bible,  all  the  earlier  versions,  from  Wiclif’s  to  the  Bhemish,  having 
the  literal  translation,  less.  All  that  is  really  asserted  is,  that  one 
inferior  to  J ohn  in  some  respect  is  greater  in  another.  The  most  emi¬ 
nent  Fathers,  Greek  and  Latin,  such  as  Chrysostom  and  Augustin,  un¬ 
derstand  this  of  our  Lord  himself,  who  was  John’s  inferior  in  the 
judgment  of  many,  and  really  in  age,  to  which  the  Greek  word  is 
frequently  applied,  though  not  in  the  New  Testament,  unless  Mark  15, 
40  be  an  instance.  Thus  understood,  the  sentence  is  a  simple  repeti¬ 
tion  of  what  John  himself  so  often  said,  that  one  coming  after  him  in 
time  was  his  superior  in  rank  and  power.  (See  above,  on  3,  11,  and 
compare  John  1,  15.  27.  30.  3,  28-31).  The  other  and  more  common 
explanation  among  Protestants  applies  the  words  indefinitely  to  any 
one  belonging  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  the  new  dispensation,  or  the 
Christian  Church.  The  common  version  {least)  supposes  a  comparison 
with  other  members  of  that  body,  and  declares  the  humblest  and  least 
favoured  among  these  to  be  superior  in  light  and  privilege  to  John  the 
Baptist.  This  construction  is  of  course  preferred  by  those  w^ho  under¬ 
stand  the  question  in  v.  2  to  express  John’s  own  misgivings,  and  the 
verse  before  us  to  be  Christ’s  apology  or  method  of  accounting  for 
them,  on  the  ground  that  John,  wdth  all  his  eminence  among  the 
prophets,  was  still  like  them  of  the  old  economy,  and  therefore  less 
acquainted  with  the  new  than  the  weakest  and  most  ignorant  of  those 
who  had  been  brought  into  it.  But  not  to  insist  upon  the  fact  that 
the  change  of  dispensations  was  not  accomplished,  and  that  conse¬ 
quently  there  were  none  of  whom  this  could  be  said,  this  whole  inter¬ 
pretation  is  at  variance  with  the  letter  of  the  passage,  which  says 
nothing  of  the  least.,  but  only  of  the  less.,  i.  e.  the  less  than  John,  un¬ 
less  we  arbitrarily  explain  the  less  as  meaning  less  than  every  other 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  These  last  words  may  be  grammatically 
construed  either  with  what  follows  or  what  goes  before,  ‘  he  that  is 
less  (in  the  old  dispensation  or  among  the  prophets)  is  greater  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  ’ — or — ‘  he  that  is  less  (i.  e.  younger,  later)  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  greater  than  he.’  On  the  whole,  as  greater  refers 
not  to  age  or  chronological  succession,  but  to  dignity  or  rank,  the  col¬ 
lateral  term  less  must  have  a  corresponding  import,  and  the  most  natu¬ 
ral  interpretation  of  the  sentence  is,  that  such  would  be  the  difference 
of  light  and  privilege  between  the  old  and  new  economy,  that  one 
belonging  to  the  latter,  though  inferior  to  John  in  ever}^  other  particu¬ 
lar,  might  in  this,  the  most  important,  be  considered  greater. 

12.  And  from  tlie  days  of  John  the  Baptist  until  now 

*See  Job  14,  1.  15,  14.  25,  4,  in  all  which  places  the  Septuagiut  version  haa 
yevvrjTOS  yvvaiKOi. 


310  MATT  II E  W  11,  12.  13.  14. 

tlie  kingdom  of  heaven  suffereth  violence,  and  the  violent 
take  it  by  force. 

The  most  probable  connection  here  is  that  the  eulogy  on  J ohn  the 
Baptist,  interrupted  by  the  last  clause  of  the  verse_  preceding,  is  re¬ 
sumed  and  continued  by  describing  the  effects  of  his  ministry  upon 
society  at  large.  From  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist^  i.  e.  from  the 
time  of  his  original  appearance  as  a  preacher  of  repentance  and  as 
Christ’s  forerunner.  During  this  brief  interval  what  changes  had  been 
wrought  by  the  proclamation  of  Messiah’s  kingdom  (Luke  16,  16)! 
The  whole  Jewish  world  had  been  thrown  into  commotion,  and  in 
spite  of  the  resistance  of  its  party  leaders  and  its  ruling  classes,  the  new 
theocracy  was  welcomed  by  the  masses,  not  with  enthusiasm  merely, 
but  with  a  f  urore  which  could  only  be  compared  to  the  conquest  of  a 
kingdom  by  the  violent  irruption  of  a  hostile  army.  This  appears  to 
be  referred  to,  not  as  something  new  but  well  known  to  the  hearers, 
as  a  proof  that  John  the  Baptist  had  retracted  nothing,  that  although 
his  active  ministry  was  ended,  the  great  work  which  he  had  begun 
was  still  in  progress,  and  it  was  absurd  to  think  of  his  abandoning  it 
now,  when  it  was  at  its  height. 


13.  For  all  the  prophets  and  the  law  prophesied  until 
John. 

As  the  for  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse  assigns  a  reason  for  what 
goes  before,  it  seems  most  natural  to  understand  it  as  a  general  state¬ 
ment,  that  the  whole  preparatory  system  which  preceded  the  Mes¬ 
siah’s  advent  terminated  in  the  person  and  the  work  of  John,  who 
therefore  occupied  a  mo'st  peculiar  and  unique  position  in  the  history 
of  redemption,  as  the  last  link  in  the  long  chain  of  Old  Testament 
agencies,  and  in  immediate  contact  with  the  first  link  of  the  new  chain 
that  succeeded  and  replaced  it.  This  may  be  mentioned  both  as  a  further 
justification  of  the  seeming  paradox  in  v.  11,  and  as  a  further  reason 
for  believing  that  the  man  w'ho  held  this  high  place  in  the  scheme  of 
the  divine  administration  would  not  lightly  undo  all  that  he  had  done 
by  retracting  his  official  testimony  to  the  person  of  his  great  superior. 
The  form  in  which  these  ideas  are  expressed  is  peculiarly  Judaic  or 
Old  Testament  in  character,  but  perfectly  intelligible  by  the  light  of 
such  associations.  The  law  and  the  prophets^  the  Old  Testament 
economy,  the  whole  revelation  of  God’s  will  in  that  form  (see  above, 
on  5, 17.  7, 12).  Until  John^  as  far  as,  down  or  up  to  John,  as  the 
last  in  the  succession  of  such  agencies.  We  have  here  another  trans¬ 
position  introduced  by  Tyndale  and  retained  by  his  successors.  The 
sonorous  close  in  the  original  is  prophesied^  i.  e.  executed  their  pro¬ 
phetic  or  preparatory  office. 

14.  And  if  *ye  will  receive  (it),  this  is  Elias,  wkich 
was  for  to  come. 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  11, 14.  15.  16. 


311 


This  whole  discourse  respecting  John  the  Baptist  is  concluded  by 
repeating  the  authoritative  statement  of  v.  10,  in  reference  to  another 
part  of  Malachi’s  prediction  (4,5.  6.  in  the  Hebrew  text  3, 23.  24),  at  the 
very  close  of  the  Old  Testament  canon,  where  Elijah  the  Prophet  is 
announced  as  the  precursor  of  the  “  great  and  dreadful  day  of  the  Lord.” 
This,  we  are  here  expressly  told  by  Christ  himself,  was  fulfilled  in 
John  the  Baptist ;  and  the  same  thing  had  been  declared  beforehand 
by  the  angel  who  announced  his  birth  (Luke  1,  17).  Whether  this 
fulfilment  was  exhaustive  or  is  yet  to  be  succeeded  by  another,  is  a 
question  which  may  be  more  conveniently  considered  in  another  place. 
(See  below,  on  17,  10-13.)  The  first  clause  of  v.  14  implies  that  the 
prophecy  was  very  differently  understood,  at  least  by  many  of  our 
Saviour’s  hearers. 

15.  He  that  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear. 

This  idiomatic  and  proverbial  formula,  like  many  others  of  perpet¬ 
ual  occurrence  in  our  Lord’s  discourses,  is  never  simply  pleonastic  or 
unmeaning,  as  the  very  repetition  often  tempts  us  to  imagine.  On  the 
contrary,  such  phrases  are  invariably  solemn  and  emphatic  warnings 
that  the  things  in  question  are  of  the  most  momentous  import  and 
entitled  to  most  serious  attention.  They  appear  to  have  been  framed 
or  adopted  by  the  Saviour,  to  be  used  on  various  occasions  and  in  the 
pauses  of  his  different  discourses.  There  is  something  eminently  simple 
and  expressive  in  the  one  before  us,  which  involves  rebuke  as  well  as 
exhortation.  ‘  Why  should  you  have  the  sense  of  hearing,  if  you  do 
not  use  it  now  ?  To  what  advantage  can  you  ever  listen,  if  you  turn 
a  deaf  ear  to  these  admonitions  ?  Now,  now,  if  ever,  he  who  can  hear 
must  hear,  or  incur  the  penalty  of  inattention  !  ’ 

16.  But  wliereunto  shall  I  liken  this  generation  ?  It 
is  like  unto  children  sitting  in  the  markets,  and  calling 
unto  their  fellows, 

Having  defined  John’s  position,  and  by  necessary  consequence  his 
own,  our  Lord,  by  a  natural  transition,  now  refers  to  the  character¬ 
istic  dilference  between  them,  and  to  the  reception  which,  in  spite  of 
this  difference,  they  had  both  experienced,  from  the  Jews,  or  rather 
from  their  leading  men,  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes  or  Doctors  of  the 
law  (Luke  7,  30).  The  conduct  of  the  latter  is  presented  in  a  para¬ 
bolic  form  by  means  of  an  analogy  derived  from  common  life  in  one  of 
its  humblest  and  most  familiar  phases,  that  of  child’s  play  or  infan¬ 
tile  sports,  a  striking  instance  of  our  Saviour’s  condescension  to  the 
habits  and  associations  of  his  hearers,  even  in  expounding  the  most 
solemn  truths.  To  this  their  attention  is  directed  by  himself  in  the 
opening  question.  ’Wliereunto^  to  what,  shall  1  lihen^  make  like  by 
comparison,  this  generation^  not  the  Jewish  race  in  general,  for  the 
Greek  word  (yeved)  has  no  such  meaning,  but  the  contemporary  race, 
correctly  rendered  generation.  As  if  he  had  said.  ‘  it  is  impossible  to 


312 


MATTHEW  11,16.17. 

represent  correctly  the  behaviour  of  these  spiritual  leaders  without 
drawing  a  comparison  from  the  caprice  and  petulance  of  children.’ 
MarJcets  are  mentioned  not  as  places  of  traffic  but  of  public  concourse, 
an  idea  suggested  by  the  derivation  of  the  Greek  word  (dyopd  from 
ayelpoo,  to  assemble).  Sitting  denotes  not  merely  the  position,  but  the 
idle  habit,  dwelling,  spending  time  there.* 

17.  And  saying,  We  liave  piped  unto  you,  and  ye 
have  not  danced  ;  we  have  mourned  unto  you,  and  ye 
have  not  lamented. 

Nothing  could  be  more  true  to  nature  and  experience  than  this 
trait  of  childish  character  and  manners,  which  is  daily  verified  in  every 
nursery  and  playground.  The  complaint  of  those  who  here  speak  is 
that  the  others,  or  their  comrades,  had  refused  to  do  their  part  in  some 
boyish  ceremony,  probably  a  mock  funeral  and  wedding.  We  piped, 
or  played  the  flute,  the  customary  music  both  on  joyful  and  sorrowful 
occasions  (see  above,  on  9,  23),  here  restricted  to  the  former  by  what 
follows,  ye  did  not  dance,,  to  the  music  thus  provided.  (On  the  con¬ 
trary)  we  wailed,,  a  Greek  word  specially  applied  to  lamentation  for  the 
dead,  as  performed  by  persons  hired  for  the  purpose,  and  ye  (as  the 
mourners)  did  not  heat  (your  breasts),  a  common  sign  of  grief  on  such 
occasions.  It  has  been  needlessly  disputed  which  of  the  two  sets  of 
children  here  described  represents  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  and 
which  our  Lord  and  his  forerunner.  If  the  question  required  or  ad¬ 
mitted  of  an  answer,  it  would  be  the  one  usually  given  or  assumed,  to 
wit,  that  the  children  introduced  as  speaking  stand  for  John  and 
Jesus,  and  those  whom  they  address  for  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees. 
The  opposite  hj^pothesis,  ingeniously  supported  by  some  modern 
writers,  turns  the  illustration  upside  down  by  making  Christ  himself  the 
one  wdio  could  be  satisfied  with  nothing,  and  his  enemies  the  party 
who  complained  of  it.  The  reasons  for  preferring  this  ingenious  para¬ 
dox  are  wholly  inconclusive,  namely,  that  it  is  this  generation  that 
is  said  to  be  like  the  children  speaking ;  that  the  saying  of  this  verse 
must  refer  to  the  same  subject  as  the  say  of  the  next ;  and  that  if 
Christ  and  John  had  been  the  speakers,  the  mourning  would  have  come 
before  the  dancing.  All  this  proceeds  upon  a  false  conception  of  the 
parable  and  an  entire  disregard  of  our  Lord’s  practice  with  respect  to 
it,  which  is  to  take  the  illustration  as  a  whole  and  apply  it  as  a  whole 
to  the  thing  signified.  The  same  objections  might  be  urged  with  far 
more  plausibility  and  force  against  his  own  interpretation  of  the  parable 
of  the  Sower  (see  below,  on  13,  18-23.)  The  whole  conduct  of  the 
leading  Jews  is  here  compared  to  that  of  the  children  in  the  market, 
the  precise  points  of  resemblance  being  left  to  be  determined  by  the 

*  For  their  felloios  (comrades,  playmates),  the  latest  critics  have  adopted  the 
reading  of  the"  Vatican  and  many  other  uncial  manuscripts,  others,  corre¬ 
sponding  to  the  one  another  found  in  Luke  (7,  32).  The  variation  has  of  course  no 
effect  upon  the  meaning. 


MATTHEW  11,17.18.19. 


313 


hearer  or  the  reader.  As  children  are  often  hard  to  please  even  in 
their  chosen  sports,  however  varied,  so  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  had 
treated  John  the  Baptist  and  our  Lord  himself. 

18.  For  John  came  neither  eating  nor  drinking,  and 
they  say,  He  hath  a  devil. 

This  is  our  Lord’s  own  application  of  the  illustration  given  in  the 
two  preceding  verses.  I  liken  them  to  such  children,  for,  because, 
John  came,  i.  e.  appeared  in  his  official  character,  as  sent  by  God. 
(Compare  the  use  of  the  same  verb  in  3,  11.  5,  17.  7,  15.  9,  13.  10,  34, 
and  vs.  3.  14  above.)  Neither  eating  nor  drinlcing,  in  the  ordinary 
manner,  and  the  customary  meats  and  drinks  of  other  men  (Luke 

7,  33),  but  locusts  and  wild  honey  (see  above,  on  3.  4).  Another  ex¬ 
planation  of  the  words,  as  a  hyperbolical  description  of  John’s  absti¬ 
nence,  or  of  the  small  quantity  of  food  which  he  consumed,  is  forbidden 
by  its  want  of  correspondence  with  what  follows  in  relation  to  our 
Lhrd  himself,  which  can  not  have  respect  to  mere  quantity.  And 
they  say,  indefinitely,  men  say,  people  sa)'',  with  special  reference, 
however,  to  the  Scribes  and  lawyers.  A  devil,  or  more  properly,  a 
demon,  an  evil  spirit  or  fallen  angel  of  inferior  rank,  permitted  to  in¬ 
vade  the  souls  and  bodies  of  men  (see  above,  on  4,  21.  8,  16.  28.  9,  32). 
We  thus  learn  that  the  same  charge  was  alleged  against  our  Lord  and 
his  forerunner.  (See  John  7,  20.  8,  48.  10,  20.)  This  shows  that  in 
John’s  case  it  was  not  a  charge  of  demoniacal  assistance  in  sustaining 
such  a  mode  of  life,  but  of  demoniacal  perverseness  in  adopting  it. 
They  may  have  thought  it  not  unlike  that  of  the  Gadarene  demoniacs 
as  described  above  (8,  28)  and  in  the  parallels  (Mark  5,  3-5.  Luke 

8,  27). 

19.  The  Son  of  man  came  eating  and  drinking,  and 
they  say,  Behold  a  man  gluttonous,  and  a  winehibber,  a 
friend  of  publicans  and  sinners.  But  wisdom  is  justified 
of  her  children. 

The  Son  of  Man,  the  Messiah  (see  above,  on  8,  20),  of  whom  John 
was  the  forerunner,  led  a  very  different  life  as  to  external  habits, 
and  gave  no  occasion  for  the  same  reproach,  and  yet  was  equally 
condemned,  though  on  another  pretext.  Came,  appeared  in  his 
public  and  official  character,  as  in  v.  18.  Eating  and  drinking, 
not  simply  more  than  John  did,  but  like  other  men,  subsisting 
on  the  same  food,  without  any  such  ascetic  singularity  as  answered 
an  important  purpose  in  the  case  of  his  forerunner.  (See  above, 
on  3,  4.)  The  essential  point  of  the  comparison  is  rather  negative 
than  positive.  It  is  not  so  much  our  Lord’s  participation  in  the 
ordinary  food  of  his  contemporaries  that  is  here  presented  for  its  own 
sake,  as  his  freedom  from  those  personal  peculiarities  which  brought 
on  John  the  charge  of  demoniacal  possession.  But  the  spite  of  his 

14 


314 


MATTHEW  11,19. 

opponents  found  another,  resting  on  this  very  freedom  from  ascetic 
rigour.  Because  he  ate  and  drank  like  other  men,  they  called  him  a 
glutton  (literally  an  eating  man)  and  a  wine-bibher^  a  felicitous  trans¬ 
lation  of  an  Anacreontic  word  (plvonoTrj^).  That  it  was  not  the  mere 
quantity  or  even  quality  of  our  Saviour’s  meat  and  drink  that  angered 
them,  but  rather  his  unrestrained  association  with  the  masses,  may  be 
gathered  from  the  next  words,  a  friend  (not  merely  a  well-wisher,  but 
a  comrade,  an  associate,  and  perhaps  more  specifically  still,  a  boon- 
companion)  of  'pu'blieanB  and  sinners.^  a  proverbial  combination  which 
has  been  explained  already.  (See  above,  on  9, 10-13.)  The  captious 
and  unreasonable  spirit  of  contemporary  censors  could  not  have  been 
more  vividly  set  forth  than  by  thus  pointing  out  their  querulous  dis¬ 
satisfaction  with  two  modes  of  life  so  utterly  dissimilar  as  those  of 
Christ  and  John  the  Baptist.  When  the  one  piped,  there  was  no  re¬ 
sponsive  joy,  nor  vdien  the  other  wailed,  responsive  sorrow.  Of  the 
many  senses  put  upon  the  last  clause,  there  are  only  two  which  seem 
entitled  to  consideration ;  and  these  differ  less  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
words  than  in  their  application.  The  first,  which  is  the  common  and 
most  ancient  one,  regards  this  as  a  passing  reflection  of  our  Lord  upon 
these  spiteful  and  frivolous  contemporary  judgments,  as  compared  with 
the  true  estimate  of  his  course  and  of  John’s,  as  two  successive  and 
consistent  parts  of  one  great  scheme,  the  proof  and  product  of  celestial 
wisdom,  but  an  estimate  confined  to  the  children  of  that  wisdom,  its 
disciples  or  adherents.  The  wisdom  of  God  displayed  in  these  apparent 
contradictions,  though  condemned  by  the  wisdom  of  the  Jewish  leaders, 
was  acquitted  and  approved  by  all  the  truly  wise.  The  only  objection 
to  the  otherwise  good  sense  thus  put  upon  the  clause  is  by  no  means  a 
conclusive  one,  namel}^,  that  it  seems  to  be  a  cold  and  unnecessary 
winding  up  of  so  lively  an  invective.  This  objection,  which  is  wholly 
one  of  taste,  and  may  therefore  affect  different  minds  difierently,  can 
be  entirely  removed,  however,  by  the  other  explanation  which  has 
been  referred  to,  but  which  rests  entirely  on  its  own  intrinsic  proba¬ 
bility,  there  being  no  weight  of  authority  in  its  favour.  It  agrees  with 
the  other  in  explaining  wisdom  to  be  that  of  God,  as  exercised  and 
shown  in  the  apparent  contradiction  of  the  life  of  John  and  that  of  Je¬ 
sus,  and  in  the  two  great  systems  which  they  symbolized  or  repre¬ 
sented.  (See  above,  on  3, 1.)  They  agree  likewise  in  explaining  her 
children  to  mean  her  adherents  or  disciples.  But  the  explanation  now 
in  question  differs  from  the  other  in  appljdng  this  description,  by  a 
solemn  irony,  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  themselves,  and  in  giving 
justify  its  earlier  and  wider  sense  of  treating  justly,  doing  justice. 
The  clause  will  then  be  an  indignant  exclamation  at  the  treatment 
which  God’s  wise  and  gracious  providence  met  with  at  the  hands  of 
those  who  claimed  to  be  its  reverent  admirers  and  its  authorized  ex¬ 
pounders.  And  (so)  was  Wisdom  justified  on  the  part  of  (utto)  her 
(favourite  and  honoured)  children.  Such  justice  does  she  meet  with 
at  the  hands  of  those  who  claim  to  understand  her  best  and  ought  to 
be  her  chief  defenders. 


315 


MATTHEW  11,20.21. 

20.  Then  began  he  to  upbraid  the  cities  wherein 
most  of  his  mighty  works  were  done,  because  they  re¬ 
pented  not  : 

TTien^  though  sometimes  indefinite,  has  commonly  its  strict  sense, 
at  that  time^  oy  just  afterwards ;  nor  is  there  any  reason  for  departing 
from  it  here,  as  the  connection  with  what  goes  before  is  obvious  and 
natural,  and  an  unbroken  continuity  appears  to  be  required  by  the 
verb  began.,  which  is  never  wholly  pleonastic  (see  above,  on  v.  7,  and 
on  4, 17),  and  which  would  be  misplaced  at  the  beginning  of  an  en¬ 
tirely  new  context.  The  connection  seems  to  be,  that  he  had  no  sooner 
ended  his  rebuke  of  the  contemporary  Jews  for  their  unreasonable  cap¬ 
tious  judgments  with  respect  to  John  the  Baptist  and  himself,  than  he 
began  a  more  severe  denunciation  of  those  places,  which  had  been  par¬ 
ticularly  honoured  by  his  presence  and  his  miracles  since  the  beginning 
of  his  Galilean  ministry.  That  some  of  the  expressions  here  used  were 
repeated  to  the  Seventy  disciples  (Luke  10,13-15.  21.  22)  is  entirely  in 
keeping  with  our  Saviour’s  practice  (see  the  introduction  to  the  Ser¬ 
mon  on  the  Mount,  p.  105),  but  admits  of  another  explanation,  namely, 
that  a  part  of  what  was  actually  spoken  to  tlie  Seventy  is  given  here 
by  Matthew  on  account  of  its  affinity  with  what  precedes,  and  because 
the  mission  of  the  Seventy,  as  being  something  altogether  temporary 
and  without  distinctive  character,  is  nowhere  else  recorded  in  this 
Gospel.  To  ujdbraid^  or  cast  reproach  upon,  including  moral  disappro¬ 
bation  and  indignant  feeling.  The  word  is  elsewhere  used  in  a  bad 
sense  to  denote  the  expression  of  human  enmity  and  malice  (see  above, 
on  5, 11,  and  below,  on  27,  44),  but  is  here  applied  without  essential 
change  of  meaning,  to  the  mingled  grief  and  anger  of  the  Son  of  God 
(see  Mark  3,  5)  provoked  by  the  impenitence  and  unbelief  of  those  who 
had  enjoyed  the  rarest  opportunities  of  hearing  his  instructions  and 
witnessing  his  miracles.  Mighty  icorhs,  literally  powers.,  the  cause  be¬ 
ing  put  for  the  effect.  (See  above,  on  7,  22.)  The  most.,  in  number, 
on  account  of  his  more  frequent  presence  in  the  chief  towns  of  the 
province.  Were  done,  literally,  were,  became,  or  happened,  came  to 
pass.  (See  above,  on  1,  22.  4,  3.  5,  18.  6,  10.  10.  8,  13.  9, 16.  10, 16. 
25.)  Repented,  changed  their  minds,  i.  e.  their  judgments  and  their 
feelings,  as  to  sin  and  their  own  sin,  with  a  corresponding  change  of 
life.  (See  above,  on  3,  2.  4, 17.) 

21.  Woe  uiito  tliee,  Chorazin  !  woe  unto  tliee,  Beth- 
saida  !  for  if  the  mighty  works,  which  were  done  in  you, 
had  been  done  in  Tyre  and  Sidon,  they  would  have  re¬ 
pented  long  ago  in  sackcloth  and  ashes. 

The  upbraidings  described  by  the  evangelist  in  v.  20,  are  now  exem¬ 
plified  by  quoting  Christ’s  own  words,  addressed  to  three  towns  of 
Galilee,  then  flourishing,  but  now,  and  for  ages  past,  no  longer  in  exist¬ 
ence.  Chorazin,  a  name  variously  written  in  the  oldest  copies,  and  by 


316 


MATTHEW  11,21.22. 


Origen  as  two  words  (Xoopa  Ztv),  the  land  of  Zin^  a  place  known  only 
from  this  passage  and  its  parallel  in  Luke  (10,  13),  its  very  site  be* 
ing  now  uncertain.  That  assigned  by  Jerome  (two  Roman  miles  from 
Capernaum)  is  probably  conjectural,  the  place  having  disappeared  be¬ 
fore  his  time.  It  is  enough  to  know,  however,  as  we  do  from  this 
verse,  that  it  was  near  enough  to  be  grouped  with  Bethsaida  and  Ca¬ 
pernaum,  as  salient  points  in  the  field  of  our  Lord’s  Galilean  ministry. 
Bethsaida  (or  Bethsaidan,  as  it  is  here  written  in  the  Greek  text)  is 
explained  by  the  best  geographical  authorities  to  be  the  name  of  two 
towns,  one  on  each  side  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  This  is  the  less  sur¬ 
prising  as  the  name  denotes  a  fisher}^,  and  therefore  would  be  apt  to 
be  repeated  in  a  region  so  devoted  to  that  business.  The  Bethsaida 
named  in  Luke,  9,  10.  IMark  6,  45.  8,  22,  was  at  the  north-east  end  of 
the  lake.  The  one  here  mentioned  and  in  Luke  10,  13,  John  1,  44. 
12,  21,  was  on  the  west  side,  near  Capernaum,  the  birthplace,  or  at 
least  the  former  residence  of  three  apostles,  Philip,  Andrew,  and  Peter 
(John,  1,  45).  The  last  clause  is  a  strong  hyperbolical  expression  of 
the  thought,  that  they  were  more  obdurate  even  than  the  heathen. 
The  question  why  our  Saviour  did  not  preach  in  Tyre  and  Sidon,  if 
he  knew  that  such  would  be  the  efiect,  was  answered  long  ago  by  Au¬ 
gustin,  because  their  inhabitants  were  not  of  the  elect,  and  much  more 
recently  by  a  learned  Romish  writer,  because  his  mission  was  at  first 
to  the  Jews  only  (see  below,  on  15, 24).  Both  replies  seem  to  assume, 
that  the  reference  is  here  to  the  contemporary  residents  of  T3U’e  and 
Sidon  ;  but  the  mention  of  Sodom  in  the  context  seems  to  show  that 
Tyre  and  Sidon  are  also  used  as  historical  types  of  the  divine  judg¬ 
ments,  and  as  places  which  had  already  been  destroyed  in  fulfilment  of 
old  prophecies.  The  reference  then  is  not  (as  in  Acts  12,  20)  to  the 
T^u’e  and  Sidon  which  had  risen  from  the  ruins  of  the  old,  but  to  the 
old  themselves,  and  long  ago  must  be  taken  in  a  strong  sense,  as 
relating  not  to  months  or  j^ears  but  ages.  Tyi-e  and  Sidon  were  the 
two  famous  cities  of  Phenicia,  the  narrow  strip  of  sea-coast  north  of 
Palestine,  distinguished  in  the  ancient  world  for  its  maritime  com¬ 
merce.  Sidon  (or  Zidon)  was  the  more  ancient,  being  mentioned  both 
in  Genesis  (10,  19.  49,  13)  and  Homer,  but  was  afterwards  eclipsed  by 
Tyre  (Josh.  19,  29.  Isai.  23,  8.  Ezek.  27,  32).  As  the  whole  import¬ 
ance  of  Phenicia  was  derived  from  these  two  sea-ports,  it  is  often  de¬ 
signated  by  their  joint  names  (Joel  3,  4.  Jer.  47,  4.  Zech.  9,  2.  Acts  12, 
20).  SacJccloth,  the  coarsest  kind  of  hair-cloth  used  for  bags,  and 
also  for  mourning,  which  in  ancient  times  did  not  consist  in  finery  of  a 
certain  colour,  but  rather  in  squalidity  and  seeming  indifference  to 
dress.  Ashes,  in  which  the  mourner  sat  or  with  which  he  was  sprin¬ 
kled,  as  a  sign  of  grief  and  desolation  (see  2  Sam.  13,  9.  Job  2.  8.  and 
compare  Josh.  7,  6.  2  Sam.  1,  2).  These  familiar  badges  of  affliction 
were  extended  to  religious  sorrow  and  humiliation,  and  here  used  as 
symbols  of  repentance  (Joel  1,  13.  Jonah  3,  8). 

22.  But  I  say  unto  you^  It  shall  be  more  tolerable  for 
Tyre  and  Sidon  at  the  day  of  judgment,  than  for  you. 


MATTHEW  11,22,23.24. 


817 


This  is  a  simple  repetition  of  the  formula  employed  in  10,  15.  to 
express  the  idea,  that  the  guilt  of  unbelief  in  those  who  saw  and 
heard  Christ  was  immeasurabl}^  greater  than  it  could  be  in  the  case  of 
such  as  had  enjoyed  no  such  advantage.  But^  at  the  beginning  of 
the  verse,  is  not  the  usual  connective  (3e),  which  occupies  the  same 
place  in  v.  16,  nor  the  stronger  adversative  (dXAd)  which  holds  the 
same  position  in  vs.  8,  9,  but  a  still  stronger  particle  originally  mean¬ 
ing  mo7'e,  nay  more,  and  here  equivalent  to  saying,  ‘  but  I  say  still 
more  than  this  ;  not  only  is  your  sin  more  heinous  than  the  sin  of 
Tyre  and  Sidon,  but  your  punishment  shall  be  proportionally  more 
severe.’ 

23.  And  thou,  Capernaum,  which  art  exalted  unto 
heaven,  shalt  he  brought  down  to  hell :  for  if  the  mighty 
works  which  have  been  done  in  thee,  had  been  clone  in 
Sodom,  it  would  have  remained  until  this  clay, 

24.  But  I  say  unto  you,  That  it  shall  be  more  tolera¬ 
ble  for  the  land  of  Sodom  in  the  day  of  judgment,  than 
for  thee. 

Even  Chorazin  and  Bethsaida,  guilty  as  they  were,  were  not  the  guil¬ 
tiest  of  Galilean  cities.  There  was  one  which  Christ  had  chosen,  in  pref¬ 
erence  to  Nazareth,  his  earl}^  home  and  second  birthplace,  as  the  seat 
and  centre  of  his  missionary  labours,  whence  he  W'ent  forth  and  whith¬ 
er  he  returned  from  his  circuits  of  benignant  toil  (see  above,  on  4,  13), 
and  where  we  know  that  he  performed,  not  onlj’  several  of  the  miracles 
recorded  in  detail,  but  multitudes  of  others  which  are  onN  mentioned 
in  the  gross  (see  above,  on  8,  5.  14.  16.  9,  2.  18.  25.  and  below,  on  17, 
24).  The  place  thus  highly  honoured  contained  some  true  followers  of 
Christ ;  but  the  mass  of  the  people  seem  to  have  remained  unmoved. 
And  thou  (or  thou  too),  not  as  sharing  merely  in  the  guilt  and  condem¬ 
nation  of  the  other  cities,  but  as  far  surpassing  them,  and  therefore 
singled  out  for  a  distinct  upbraiding.*  The  exaltation  here  referred  to 
cannot  be  mere  secular  prosperity,  but  must  be  that  resulting  from 
the  residence  of  Christ ;  and  this  determines  the  true  meaning  of  what 
follows,  thou  shalt  he  hroiight  down,  or,  according  to  the  critics,  shalt 
descend  (or  go  down).  Hell  is  not  the  word  so  rendered  in  5,  22.  29. 
30.  10,  28,  and  meaning  the  place  of  future  torment,  but  another  (a8r]s) 
which,  according  to  its  etymology  and  usage  in  the  classics,  means  the 
unseen  world,  the  state  of  the  dead,  the  world  of  spirits,  without 
regard  to  difference  of  character  or  condition.  This  is  also  said  to  be 

*  The  remainder  of  the  first  clause  varies  strangely  in  the  oldest  manu¬ 
scripts,  several  of  which  read,  shalt  thou  he  exalted  to  heaven  ?  but  the  latest 
critics  only  change  the  form  and  not  the  sense  by  reading  rj  vxj/dci^/js^  instead  of 
v\f/a)d£i(xa. 


318 


MATTHEW  11,24.25. 

the  meaning  of  the  old  English  though  now  used  only  in  the 
sense  of  gehenna^  which  has  led  some  to  retain  the  Greek  word  hades 
in  translation  as  a  necessary  means  of  avoiding  error  and  confusion. 
It  is  here  used  simply  in  antithesis  to  heaven^  and  must  be  explained 
accordingly,  as  meaning  the  extremes!  degradation  and  debasement  of 
a  moral  kind,  but  not  perhaps  without  allusion  to  the  loss  of  all  ex¬ 
ternal  greatness,  and  oblivion  of  the  very  spot  on  which  the  city  stood. 
The  last  clause  and  the  next  verse  thus  apply  to  Capernaum  and  Sod¬ 
om  what  was  said  in  vs.  21.  22.  of  Chorazin  and  Bethsaida,  as  com¬ 
pared  with  Tyre  and  Sidon. 

25.  At  that  time  Jesus  answered  and  said,  I  thank 
thee,  0  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  because  thou 
hast  hid  these  things  from  the  v/ise  and  prudent,  and 
hast  revealed  them  unto  babes. 

If  there  were  any  chronological  difficulty  here  in  assuming  an  im¬ 
mediate  succession,  there  would  be  no  objection  to  our  giving  the 
words  in  that  time  a  wider  meaning.  But  as  no  such  difficulty  does 
exist ;  as  the  word  translated  time  is  one  which  strictly  means  a  point 
or  juncture,  not  a  period ;  and  as  the  nexus  between  this  verse  and  the 
one  before  it  is  an  obvious  one ;  the  only  safe  course  is  to  give  the 
terms  their  proper  meaning  as  denoting  that  our  Lord  made  this  con¬ 
fession  at  the  same  time  when  he  uttered  the  upbraiding  just  recorded. 
As  the  latter  comprehended  in  its  scope  many  learned  and  authoritative 
scribes,  of  whom  there  were  some  in  every  town  of  Galilee  (see  Luke  5, 
17),  it  would  naturally  lead  to  precisely  such  reflections  as  are  here 
recorded  in  the  solemn  form  of  an  address  to  God.  Answering^  a 
word  often  used  in  Scripture  without  any  words  preceding  (see  below, 
on  22,  1.  28,  5,  and  compare  Luke  14,  3.  John  2,  18.  5,  17),  and  by 
some  explained  as  perfectly  synonymous  with  saying ;  but  as  this  is 
almost  always  added,  there  would  then  be  a  deliberate  tautology  with¬ 
out  example.  Some  suppose  the  answer  to  have  reference  to  the 
thoughts,  looks,  or  actions  of  the  other  party.  Some  prefer  a  wider 
reference  to  the  occasion,  whatever  it  may  be,  which  bears  the  same 
relation  to  the  words  recorded,  that  an  answer  bears  to  the  preceding 
question.  In  the  case  before  us,  on  the  supposition  of  unbroken  con¬ 
tinuity,  the  words  of  Christ  are  a  reply  to  the  impenitence  and  unbe¬ 
lief  which  called  them  forth.  Thanh  is  the  verb  correctly  rendered  by 
confess  in  3,  6.  and  often  elsewhere.*  A  more  exact  equivalent,  how¬ 
ever,  is  acknowledged^  which  may  be  applied  both  to  sins  and  favours, 
in  the  sense  of  praise  or  thanks.  It  is  here  a  most  significant  expres¬ 
sion  readily  suggesting  at  the  same  time  the  ideas  of  praise,  thanks¬ 
giving,  and  assent  or  acquiescence  (as  in  Luke  22,  C,  where  it  is  trans¬ 
lated  'promised^  as  the  uncompounded  verb  is  in  14,  7  below).  It  is 
not  mere  gratitude  that  Christ  expresses  as  a  man,  but  approbation 

*  See  Mark  1,  5.  Luke  10,  21.  Acts  19,  18.  Rom.  14, 1.  15,  9.  Phil.  2, 11.  Jas. 
5,  1(5.  Rev.  3,  5. 


319 


MATTHEW  11,25.26.27. 

and  concurrence  as  a  divine  person.  ‘  I  acknowledge  to  thee  that  thou 
hast  done  all  things  well.’  He  addresses  God,  tirst,  as  his  Father, 
then  as  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  thus  claiming  the  most  intimate 
personal  relation  to  the  sovereign  ruler  of  the  universe.  This  character 
or  aspect  of  the  divine  nature  is  made  prominent  because  he  is  about 
to  cite  a  signal  instance  of  God’s  sovereign  independence  of  all  human 
wisdom  and  authority.  That  thou  didst  hide  away,  conceal,  these 
{things),  an  indefinite  expression,  but  with  obvious  reference  to 
something  previously  said  or  done,  and  thus  confirming  the  conclusion 
that  this  is  not  a  new  context,  but  a  direct  continuation  of  what  goes 
before.  These  things  most  probably  means  all  that  made  the  differ¬ 
ence  between  the  classes  here  contrasted,  i.  e.  spiritual  knowledge  of 
the  truth,  susceptibility  of  right  impressions,  and  a  just  foresight  of 
the  consequences  flowing  both  from  faith  and  unbelief.  The  hiding 
here  ascribed  to  God  is  only  positive  as  being  the  fulfilment  of  his 
righteous  judgment  against  sin,  but  negative  as  being  only  the  with¬ 
holding  of  that  grace  without  which  these  things  are  invisible.  The 
wise  and  'prudent  (or  intelligent'),  not  only  in  their  own  conceit  but 
really  in  other  matters,  not  excepting  the  letter  of  the  law,  of  whose 
true  spirit  they  knew  nothing.  To  hahes,  infants,  properly  denoting 
children  who  have  not  yet  learned  to  talk,  and  therefore  an  appropriate 
but  strong  description  of  the  ignorant  and  weak,  anvd  more  especially 
of  such  as  feel  themselves  to  be  so  in  all  spiritual  matters,  until  God 
reveals  them. 

26.  Even  so,  Father;  for  so  it  seemed  good  in  thy 
sight. 

Even  so  is  Tyndale’s  version  of  the  word  translated  yea  in  v.  9,  and 
in  5,  37.  9,  28,  and  corresponding  to  the  modern  English  yes,  as  a 
simple  particle  of  affirmation.  It  may  either  be  considered  as  expres¬ 
sive  of  assent,  in  which  case  our  version  is  correct,  or  of  emphatic  rep¬ 
etition,  with  a  verb  to  be  supplied  from  the  preceding  verse.  ‘Yes 
(I  do  thank  thee)  that  it  has  so  pleased  thee.’  The  latter  explanation 
is  preferred  by  the  exact  philologists  ;  the  other  is  the  current  one,  in 
consequence  of  which  this  verse  has  now  become  a  standing  formula 
of  acquiescence  in  the  absolute  and  sovereign  will  of  God.  So  it  seem¬ 
ed  good  in  thy  sight  is  perhaps  as  near  as  we  can  come  in  English  to 
the  idiomatic  form  of  the  original,  which  strictly  means,  so  it  became 
(or  was)  good  pleasure  (or  complacency)  before  thee.  The  Greek  noun 
(evdoKia)  expresses  independent  volition,  sovereign  choice,  but  always 
with  an  implication  of  benevolence,  which  sometimes  becomes  the  pre¬ 
dominant  idea,  as  in  Luke  2,  14.* 

27.  All  things  arc  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father  : 


*  Sec  also  Eph.  1,  5.  9.  Phil.  1,  15.  2,  13.  2  Th.  1, 11,  and  compare  the  cog¬ 
nate  verb  in  3,  17.  above. 


320 


M  A  T  T  II  E  ^Y  II,  27,  28. 


and  no  man  knoAvetli  the  Son,  but  tbe  Father  ;  neither 
knoweth  any  man  the  Father,  saA-e  the  Son,  and  (he)  to 
AvhomsoeA^er  the  Son  Avill  reveal  (him). 

The  emphatic  recognition  of  the  Father’s  sovereignty  in  the  pre¬ 
ceding  verse  required  some  definition  of  the  speaker’s  Sonship  to  pre¬ 
vent  all  misconception  of  his  own  authority.  This  relation  involves 
not  merely  delegation  of  authority  in  time,  but  community 
of  nature  from  eternity.  All  (things)  were  delivered  (or  transferred, 
imparted)  to  me  l)y  my  Father^  i.  e.  all  that  he  possesses  in  himself, 
except  what  constitutes  the  personal  distinction  between  us.  There  is 
no  inferiority  implied  in  the  reception,  which  is  an  eternal  one.  It 
follows,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that  no  one  can  be  cognizant  of 
this  relation,  that  is,  know  it  thoroughly  (eTriyivaaKei)  except  those 
who  are  parties  to  it.  The  idiomatic  use  of  man  for  one,  which  is  no 
longer  required  by  English  usage,  almost  stultifies  the  sentence  to  the 
modern  reader  by  appearing  to  call  God  a  man.  The  last  clause  draws 
attention  to  the  great  and  glorious  truth,  that  as  the  Father,  in  that 
character,  gives  all  things  to  the  Son,  it  is  a  personal  function  of  the 
Son,  as  the  Divine  Word,  to  reveal  the  Father. 

28.  Come  unto  me,  all  (ye)  that  labour  and  are  heavy 
laden,  and  I  Avill  give  you  rest. 

As  the  last  words  of  the  preceding  verse  implied  the  possibility  of 
man  in  some  sense  knowing  God  the  Father,  but  only  through  the 
intervention  of  the  Son,  and  at  his  sovereign  pleasure  {he  to  whomso- 
ever  the  Son  will  reveal  him),  our  Lord  offers,  as  it  were,  to  exercise 
this  gracious  function,  by  inviting  men  to  come  to  him,  not  in  the  way 
of  speculation  but  of  penitent  submission,  not  as  philosophers  to  be 
enlightened,  but  as  sinners  to  be  saved.  There  is  exquisite  beauty  in 
this  sudden  but  not  harsh  transition  from  the  mysteries  of  the  Godhead 
to  the  miseries  of  man.  The  Son  is  the  revealer  of  the  Father,  not  to 
stimulate  or  gratify  a  mere  scientific  curiosity  as  to  the  mode  of  the 
divine  existence,  but  to  bring  the  Godhead  into  saving  contact  with  the 
sin-sick  ruined  soul.  Having  laid  the  foundation  for  what  follows  in 
his  own  eternal  sonship  and  community  of  nature  with  the  Father,  he 
now  turns  the  doctrine  to  a  practical  account,  and  calls  men  to  avail 
themselves  of  its  provisions.  Come,  the  same  invitatory  adverb  that 
was  used  above  in  4,  19,  and  there  explained  as  strictly  meaning,  Here 
(or  hither)  after  (or  behind)  me!  So  in  this  place,  with  another  pre¬ 
position  (Trpok),  it  may  be  rendered.  Here  (or  hither)  to  me !  The 
invitation,  although  formally  addressed  to  a  certain  class  distinctly 
specified,  is  truly  universal,  since  the  qualities  described  belong  to  all 
men  just  so  far  as  their  consciences  are  sensible  and  active.  Ye  that 
labour,  not  in  the  mild  sense  of  working,  but  in  that  of  toiling,  work¬ 
ing  hard,  and  suffering  in  consequence,  all  which  is  the  essential  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  Greek  word  {KoiTL^vres).  There  may  be  no  intentional 


MATTHEW  11,  28.  29.  30. 


321 


allusion  to  self-righteousness,  or  efforts  to  u^ork  out  our  salvation  in 
our  own  strength  ;  but  to  nothing  are  the  terms  of  the  description  more 
appropriate,  not  only  as  to  this  word,  but  the  next,  hea'cy  laden,  in 
Greek  a  single  word  applied  in  classical  usage  to  the  loading  of  a  ship 
or  beast  of  burden,  and  in  this  connection  necessarily  suggesting  the 
idea  of  one  weighed  down  by  a  burden  far  beyond  his  strength. 
Though  exactly  descriptive  of  man’s  general  condition,  as  bound  and 
yet  unable  to  fulfil  the  lav/,  and  therefore  groaning  under  its  intoler¬ 
able  penalty  and  condemnation  as  a  crushing  load,  this  figure  is  pecu¬ 
liarly  expressive  of  that  form  of  legal  bondage  which  oppressed  the 
ancient  Jewish  church,  and  to  which  the  same  figure  is  applied  by  our 
Lord  elsewhere  (see  below,  on  23,  4),  and  by  Peter  in  the  council  at 
Jerusalem  (Acts  15,  10).  Give  you  rest,  another  single  word  in 
Greek,  and  so  translated  in  the  older  English  versions  (ease  you). 
The  exact  sense  is  still  more  expressive,  I  uiU  malce  you  cease,  i.  e. 
cease  to  suffer  from  this  thankless  toil  and  this  intolerable  burden. 

29.  Take  my  yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of  me  ;  for  I 
am  meek  and  lowly  in  lieart  :  and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto 
your  souls. 

As  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (5, 17),  our  Lord  here  guards 
against  the  natural  tendency  of  all  men  to  expect  relief  from  legal 
bondage  in  the  abrogation  of  the  law  itself.  But  what  he  there  does  by 
explicitly  denying  that  he  came  for  such  a  purpose,  he  does  here  no  less  ef¬ 
fectually,  although  less  directly,  by  inviting  sinners,  not  to  throw  off  the 
yoke  entireljg  but  to  take  his  yoke  upon  them,  not  a  new  law  substituted 
for  the  old,  but  the  old  as  interpreted  and  magnified  by  him,  no  longer 
as  a  method  of  salvation,  but  forever  as  a  rule  of  life.  The  verb  trans¬ 
lated  talce  has  here  its  primary  and  proper  sense  of  taking  up  and  car¬ 
rying,  as  in  4,  G.  9,  G.  Learn  of  me,  seems  to  mean,  receive  instruction 
from  me,  which  is  fhe  idea  probably  convc3^ed  to  most  English  readers. 
But  why  should  it  be  given  as  a  reason  for  this  precept  that  the  teacher 
is  meelc  and  lowly  in  heart?'  However  precious  such  a  character  may 
be,  the  main  qualification  of  a  doctrinal  instructor  must  be  wisdom, 
knowledge,  and  capacity  to  teach.  The  Greek  suggests  a  somewhat 
different  idea.  ‘  Take  a  lesson  from  me,’  as  in  24,  32  below,  where  the 
same  verb  and  particle  occur  together — ‘  learn  a  parable  of  the  fig- 
tree,’  i.  e.  borrow  an  illustrative  analogy  from  it.  So  here,  take  a  les¬ 
son  from  my  example.  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart,  why  should 
you  refuse  to  be  the  same  ?  I  have  condescended  to  be  made  under 
the  law  in  its  severest  form  and  requisitions.  Why  should  you  scru¬ 
ple  to  submit  to  it  with  me  as  its  interpreter  and  your  assistant  7  Do 
this,  and  you  shall  find  what  you  are  vainly  seeking  elsewhere,  rest,  re¬ 
pose,  relief,  a  Greek  noun  corresponding  to  the  verb  in  v.  28.  To  (or 
for)  your  souls,  not  merely  for  your  bodies,  but  relief  from  spiritual 
burdens  and  distresses  which  arc  otherwise  incurable. 

30.  For  my  yoke  (is)  easy,  and  my  burden  is  light. 

14* 


322 


MATTHEW  11,30. 


Lest  they  should  still  imagine  that  they  are  invited  only  to  exchange 
one  hard  yoke  and  one  heavy  burden  for  another,  he  assures  them  that 
his  yoke  is  easy^  a  word  elsewhere  rendered  good  (1  Cor.  15,  33),  Mnd 
(Ephes.  4,  32),  gracious  (1  Pet.  2,  3),  but  originally  meaning  good  foi\ 
i.  e.  useful,  beneficial,  and  never  perhaps  used  without  some  reference  to 
this  its  etymological  import.  This  might  seem  to  be  its  only  meaning 
here,  ‘  my  yoke  is  good  (for  you),  will  do  you  good,  however  hard  it 
may  be.’  But  that  the  word  was  also  meant  to  suggest  the  idea  of 
gentleness  and  mildness,  as  opposed  to  harshness  and  severity,  is  evi¬ 
dent,  not  only  from  its  usage  in  the  other  places  cited,  but  from  the 
parallel  expression  in  the  other  clause,  my  lourden  is  lights  the  last 
word  being  wholly  unambiguous  and  certainly  the  opposite  of  heavy ^  as 
appears,  for  example,  from  the  antithesis  in  2  Cor.  4, 17.  The  incon¬ 
sistency  which  some  have  found  between  this  declaration  and  the  one 
in  7, 14  above,  arises  wholly  from  confounding  the  natural  repugnance 
of  the  human  heart  to  God’s  commandments  with  the  weakness  of  the 
new  man  in  obeying  them.  The  former  must  be  conquered  or  we  can¬ 
not  be  saved.  The  latter  needs  only  to  be  strengthened  by  divine 
grace,  and  the  yoke  of  duty  becomes  easy  to  the  humbled  neck,  the 
load  of  obligation  light  to  the  invigorated  shoulders.  This  delightful 
invitation,  still  addressed  to  all  who  answer  the  description  in  the  text, 
is  remarkable,  not  only  in  itself  as  an  expression  of  divine  benignity 
and  condescension,  but  historically  also,  as  exactly  suited  to  the  time 
and  circumstances  in  which  it  was  uttered,  after  our  Lord’s  appearance 
as  a  teacher,  and  yet  long  before  his  great  atoning  sacrifice.  Without 
anticipating  therefore  what  was  not  to  be  disclosed  till  after  that  great 
critical  event,  it  nevertheless  says  enough  to  win  the  heavy-laden  sin¬ 
ner,  and  to  us,  who  read  or  hear  it  now  contains  the  germ  of  all  that 
has  been  since  revealed. 


CHAPTEE  XII. 

It  entered  into  the  design  of  all  the  Gospels  to  exhibit  the  reception 
which  our  Saviour  met  with  both  from  friends  and  enemies.  The  dark  side 
of  the  picture  has  already  been  presented  in  the  history  before  us,  but 
only  in  occasional  glimpses,  as  when  it  records  the  objection  to  his 
claiming  the  power  of  forgiveness,  to  his  intercourse  with  publicans 
and  sinners,  to  his  free  mode  of  living,  and  supposed  neglect  of  all  as¬ 
cetic  duties.  In  the  present  chapter  the  evangelist  brings  together 
other  symptoms  of  increasing  enmity,  without  much  regard  to  chrono¬ 
logical  arrangement,  but  with  great  effect  in  showing  from  what  quar¬ 
ters  and  by  what  means  the  opposition  to  our  Lord’s  preliminary  work 
proceeded.  He  first  relates  a  charge  of  Sabbath-breaking  brought  os¬ 
tensibly  against  his  disciples,  with  his  answer  (1-8);  then  a  second 
charge,  connected  with  a  miracle,  and  also  followed  by  an  answer  (9— 


323 


MATTHEW  12,1. 

13) ;  then  the  organized  opposition  to  which  this  led,  and  our  Saviour’s 
consequent  retirement  from  the  public  view,  without  relinquishing  his 
work,  in  which  the  evangelist  points  out  the  fulfilment  of  a  signal  pro¬ 
phecy  (14-21).  Another  miracle,  which  led  to  a  general  inquiry 
whether  he  were  not  the  Messiah,  also  led  to  a  blasphemous  charge  of 
collusion  with  the  Evil  One,  and  this  to  an  argumentative  defence  on 
his  part,  and  a  solemn  warning  against  the  unpardonable  sin  (22-37). 
Another  form  of  opposition  was  the  demand  of  a  sign  or  miraculous 
proof  of  his  Messiahship,  which  he  refused,  referring  them  to  cases 
drawn  from  the  Old  Testament,  as  aggravations  of  their  own  miscon¬ 
duct,  and  concluding  with  a  fearful  and  mysterious  prediction  of  the 
ruin  that  awaited  them  (38-45).  To  these  instances  of  opposition 
from  his  enemies,  the  historian  adds  one  of  interruption  from  his 
friends,  which  gave  occasion  to  a  memorable  speech  defining  his  social 
and  domestic  relations  (40-50). 

1.  At  that  time  Jesus  went  on  the  sabbath  day 
through  the  corn  ;  and  his  disciples  were  ahungered^  and 
began  to  pluck  the  ears  of  corn,  and  to  eat. 

Matthew  here  resumes  the  history  of  the  opposition  to  our  Saviour 
which  he  had  noticed  incidentally  before  (see  above,  on  9,  3.  11.  14), 
in  reference  to  his  power  of  forgiveness,  his  intercourse  with  publicans, 
and  his  neglect  of  fasting.  Another  charge  or  ground  of  opposition  to 
the  Saviour,  on  the  part  of  the  more  scrupulous  and  rigid  Jews,  was 
his  alleged  violation  of  the  Sabbath,  either  in  person  or  by  suffering  his 
followers  to  do  what  was  esteemed  unlawful.  This  divine  institution, 
as  already  mentioned  (see  above,  on  4,  23),  being  chiefly  negative  in  its 
observance,  was  less  affected  by  a  change  of  outward  situation  than  the 
legal  ceremonies,  most  of  which  were  limited  to  one  place,  and  could 
not  be  performed  without  irregularity  elsewhere.  Hence  the  Jews  in 
foreign  lands,  being  cut  off  from  the  offering  of  sacrifices  and  the  for¬ 
mal  celebration  of  their  yearly  festivals,  were  chiefly  distinguished  from 
the  Gentiles  among  whom  they  dwelt  by  two  observances,  those  of 
circumcision  and  the  Sabbath,  and  especially  the  latter,  as  the  more  no¬ 
torious  and  palpable  peculiarity  of  their  religion.  Hence  the  prophets 
who  predict  the  exile,  lay  peculiar  stress  on  the  observance  of  the  Sab¬ 
bath,  as  the  badge  of  a  true  Israelite.  (Isa.  5G,  2.  58, 13.  Lam.  2,  G. 
Ezek.  44,  24.  Hos.  2, 11.)  After  the  restoration,  when  the  same  ne¬ 
cessity  no  longer  existed,  the  people  were  disposed  to  exaggerate  this 
duty  by  gratuitous  restrictions,  and  by  pushing  the  idea  of  religious 
rest  (which  was  the  essence  of  the  Sabbath)  to  an  absurd  extreme,  at 
the  same  time  losing  sight  of  its  spiritual  purpose,  and  confining  their 
attention  to  the  outward  act,  or  rather  abstinence  from  action,  as  in¬ 
trinsically  holy  and  acceptable  to  God.  One  of  the  Jewish  books  enu¬ 
merates  thirty-nine  acts,  with  many  subdivisions,  which  were  to  be 
considered  as  unlawful  labour,  and  the  Talmud  gives  the  most  minute 
specifications  of  the  distance  which  might  be  lawfully  passed  over,  even 


324 


MATTHEW  12,  1.  2. 

in  the  greatest  emergencies,  as  that  of  fire.  With  these  distorted  and 
corrupted  notions  of  the  Sabbath,  they  would  soon  find  something  to 
condemn  in  the  less  punctilious  but  more  rational  and  even  legal  con¬ 
duct  of  our  Lord  and  his  disciples.  Two  such  attacks,  with  their  his¬ 
torical  occasions,  are  recorded  here  by  Matthew.  It  is  also  given  by 
Mark  (2,  23-28)  and  Luke  (6, 1-5),  less  minutely,  and  with  some  va¬ 
riation  as  to  form  and  substance,  but  without  the  least  real  inconsist¬ 
ency.  One  of  the  points  of  difference  is  in  the  chronological  arrange¬ 
ment,  Matthew  connecting  what  is  here  recorded  wdth  his  previous  con¬ 
text  by  the  general  formula,  in  that  time^  while  Luke  specifies  the  very 
Sabbath  upon  which  it  happened.  As  Mark  has  no  indication  of  time 
whatever,  it  is  clear  that  he  is  putting  things  together,  not  as  immedi¬ 
ately  successive  in  the  time  of  their  occurrence,  but  as  belonging  to 
the  same  class  or  series,  that  of  the  objections  made  by  the  censorious 
Jews,  on  legal  grounds,  to  Christ’s  proceedings.  Hence  this  topic  oc¬ 
cupies  an  earlier  place  in  Mark  than  in  either  of  the  other  gospels,  and 
when  taken  in  connection  with  their  marked  agreement,  even  in  minute 
forms  of  expression,  proves  that  w’hile  they  used  the  same  material  and 
aimed  at  the  same  ultimate  design,  each  was  directed  to  pursue  his 
own  plan  independently  of  both  the  others.  Corn^  literally  sown 
{fields),  i.  e.  sown  with  corn,  in  the  proper  English  sense  of  grain  or 
breadstuffs,  with  particular  reference  to  wheat  and  barley.  That  the 
corn  was  grown  and  ripe,  though  not  expressly  mentioned,  is  implied 
in  all  that  follows.  On  the  Sahhath  day,  literally,  the  Sahhaths,  which 
may  seem  to  indicate  that  this  particular  occurrence  took  place  more 
than  once,  or  that  this  clause  is  descriptive  of  a  customary  action.  But 
the  plural  form  of  the  Greek  word  is  purely  accidental,  and  arises 
either  from  assimilation  to  Greek  names  of  festivals  (compare  John  10, 
22),  or  from  the  fact  that  the  Hebrew  word  Sabbath  (n2'«r)  in  its  Ara¬ 
maic  form  (Kn3‘i3)  resembles  a  Greek  plural  (o-d,S/3ara),  and  is  often  so 

inflected,  although  singular  in  meaning.  His  disciples,  his  immediate 
personal  attendants,  probably  those  whose  call  has  previously  been  re¬ 
corded,  Peter  and  Andrew,  James,  and  John,  and  Matthew,  perhaps 
with  the  addition  of  some  others  who  received  his  doctrine,  and  were 
therefore  his  disciples  in  a  wider  sense.  Our  Lord  appears  to  have 
been  seldom  free  from  the  society  of  others,  either  friends  or  foes,  so 
that  he  was  sometimes  under  the  necessity  of  escaping  from  them  for  a 
time,  especially  for  devotional  purposes.  (See  below,  on  14,  22.)  Began 
is  not  a  pleonastic  or  superfluous  expression,  but  suggests  that  they 
were  interrupted,  or  that  while  they  were  so  doing,  the  ensuing  dia¬ 
logue  took  place. 

2.  But  when  the  Pharisees  saw  (it),  they  said  unto 
him,  Behold,  thy  disciples  do  that  which  is  not  lawful  to 
do  upon  the  sabbath  day. 

The  Pharisees,  i.  e.  certain  of  that  class  who  seem  to  have  been 
near  at  hand  whenever  Christ  appeared  in  public.  This  will  be  less 


325 


MATTHEW  12,  2.  3.  4. 

surprising  if  we  consider  that  the  Pharisees  were  not  a  small  and  select 
body,  but  the  great  national  party,  who  insisted  on  the  smallest 
points  of  difference  between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  most  probably  in¬ 
cluded  the  mass  of  the  nation.  (See  above,  on  3,  7.)  The  expression 
here  used,  therefore,  is  nearly  equivalent  to  saying,  certain  strict  punc¬ 
tilious  Jews  who  happened  to  be  present.  Mark  and  Matthew  repre¬ 
sent  them  as  complaining  to  the  Master  of  his  disciples ;  while  accord¬ 
ing  to  Luke,  the  objection  was  addressed  to  the  latter.  Both  accounts 
are  perfectly  consistent,  whether  we  suppose  Luke  to  describe  the  in¬ 
direct  attack  upon  them  as  a  direct  one,  or,  which  seems  more  natural, 
assume  that  both  our  Lord  and  his  followers  w'ere  thus  addressed  by 
different  persons,  either  at  once  or  in  succession.  8ee^  behold,  imply¬ 
ing  something  strange  and  hard  to  be  believed.  The  simple  act  of 
plucking  and  eating  was  expressly  allowed  by  the  law  of  Moses  (Beut. 
23,  25).  The  unlawfulness  must  therefore  have  consisted  either  in 
wanton  waste  or  in  doing  on  the  Sabbath  what  on  any  other  day  would 
have  been  lawful.  But  of  waste  or  damage  to  the  grain,  the  text  con¬ 
tains  no  trace  or  intimation.  It  was  therefore  not  the  act  itself,  but 
the  time  of  its  performance,  that  gave  occasion  to  the  charge  before  us, 
as  we  learn  from  Maimonides  that  the  tradition  of  the  fathers  reckoned 
the  act  here  described  as  a  kind  of  harvesting  or  reaping,  and  as  such 
forbidden  labour  on  the  Sabbath. 

3.  Blit  he  said  unto  them,  Have  ye  not  read  what 
David  did,  when  he  was  ahungered,  and  they  that  were 
with  him ; 

4.  How  he  entered  into  the  house  of  God,  and  did 
eat  the  shewbread,  which  was  not  lawful  for  him  to  eat, 
neither  for  them  which  were  with  him,  hut  only  for  the 
priests  ? 

By  a  combination  of  the  three  accounts  we  learn  that  Christ  de¬ 
fended  his  disciples  from  this  frivolous  and  malignant  charge  by  five 
distinct  arguments,  two  of  which  have  been  preserved  by  all  three 
go.spels,  one  by  Mark  alone,  and  two  by  Matthew  alone.  The  first 
place  is  assigned  by  all  to  the  same  answer.  This  is  drawn  from  the 
Old  Testament  history,  and  presupposes  their  acquaintance  with  it,  and 
their  habit  of  reading  it.  It  also  presupposes  their  acknowledgment 
of  David  as  an  eminent  servant  of  God,  all  whose  official  acts,  unless 
divinely  disapproved,  afford  examples  to  those  placed  in  similar  situa¬ 
tions.  The  narrative  referred  to  is  still  extant  in  1  Samuel  21, 1-6, 
which  is  thus  proved  to  be  a  part  of  the  canon  recognized  by  Christ. 
The  house  of  Gof  in  which  he  dwelt  among  his  people,  an  expression 
no  less  applicable  to  the  tabernacle  than  the  temple,  As  the  ancient 
sanctuary,  under  both  its  forms,  was  meant  to  symbolize  the  doctrine  of 
divine  inhabitation  and  peculiar  presence  with  the  chosen  people,  it  was 


326 


MATTHEW  12,4-7. 

moveable  as  long  as  they  were  wandering  and  unsettled ;  but  as  Soon 
as  they  had  taken  full  possession  of  the  promised  land,  which  was  not 
till  the  reign  of  David,  the  portable  tent  was  exchanged  for  a  perma¬ 
nent  substantial  dwelling.  At  the  time  here  mentioned  the  tabernacle 
was  at  Nob  (1  Sam.  21, 1).  The  shew-bread,  literally,  J)read  of  presen¬ 
tation^  called  in  Hebrew,  Itread  ejd(the  divine)  face  (or  presence)^  con¬ 
sisted  of  twelve  loaves  or  cakes  placed  in  rows  upon  a  table  in  the  Holy 
Place  or  outward  apartment  of  the  tabernacle,  and  renewed  every  Sab¬ 
bath,  when  the  old  were  eaten  by  the  priests  on  duty  (Lev.  24,  5-9). 
Whatever  may  have  been  the  meaning  of  this  singular  observance,  it 
was  certainly  a  necessary  and  divinely  instituted  part  of  the  tabernacle- 
service,  resting  on  the  same  authority,  though  not  of  equal  moment 
Vt^ith  the  Sabbath.  The  relevancy  of  the  case  here  cited  is  enhanced 
by  the  probability  that  David’s  desecration  of  the  shew-bread  was  it¬ 
self  committed  on  the  Sabbath,  as  the  loaves  appear  to  have  been  just 
renewed  (1  Sara.  21,  6).  It  leas  not  lawful^  i.  e.  not  according  to  the 
law  of  Moses,  which  our  Lord  and  his  disciples  were  accused  of  break¬ 
ing.  In  either  case,  the  positive  observance,  though  legitimate  and 
binding,  must  give  way  to  the  necessity  of  self-preservation. 

5.  Or  have  ye  not  read  in  the  law,  how  that  on  the 
sabbath  days  the  priests  in  the  temple  profane  the  sab¬ 
bath,  and  are  blameless  ? 

Another  argument  against  their  formal  and  mechanical  observance 
of  the  Sabbath,  is  that  it  was  violated  by  the  ritual  itself,  which  they 
acknowledged  to  be  no  less  binding.  If  all  work  on  the  Sabbath  was 
forbidden  absolutely,  then  sacrifices  offered  upon  that  day  were  unlaw¬ 
ful,  though  required  by  express  divine  authority.  This  reductio  ad  db- 
surdum^  although  perfectly  consistent  with  the  other  arguments  em¬ 
ployed,  has  been  preserved  by  Matthew  only.  Profane,  make  common 
or  accessible  to  all.  Blameless,^  because  they  are  obeying  an  explicit 
divine  precept. 


6.  But  .1  say  unto  you.  That  in  this  place  is  (one) 
greater  than  the  temple. 

If  the  service  of  the  temple  j  ustified  a  seeming  violation  of  the  Sab¬ 
bath,  how  much  more  the  presence  and  authority  of  one  who  was  su¬ 
perior  in  dignity  and  value  to  the  temple,  because  he  realized  in  his 
own  person  what  was  only  prefigured  by  the  sanctuary,  namely,  the 
presence  of  God  among  his  people.  (Compare  John  2,  21.)^ 

7.  But  if  ye  had  known  what  (this)  meaneth,  I  will 


*  Instead  of  the  masculine  form  (p-e/^cor)  greater^  i.  e.  one  greater,  or  a  per¬ 
son  greater,  the  latest  critics  have  the  neuter  (pet^oj'),  i,  e.  something  greater, 
whidi  is  more  pointed,  but  without  effect  on  the  essential  meaning. 


327 


MATTHEW  12,7.8.9. 

have  mercy,  and  not  sacrifice,  ye  would  not  have  con¬ 
demned  the  guiltless. 

Here  the  Saviour  quotes  a  second  time  the  words  of  God  as  re¬ 
corded  by  Hosea  (6,  6),  and  declaring  the  superior  importance  of  benev¬ 
olent  affections  to  mere  ritual  observances  however  binding  (see  above, 
on  9, 13,  where  the  words  occurred  before  and  were  explained).  That 
they  were  really  uttered  in  both  cases,  is  apparent  from  the  different 
mode  of  introducing  them.  Before  he  told  his  enemies  to  go  and 
learn  the  meaning  of  the  prophet’s  language.  Here  he  says  that  if 
they  had  known  its  meaning  they  would  not  have  condemned  the 
guiltless^  the  same  word  that  is  rendered  Mameless  in  v.  5,  a  needless 
variation  which  impairs  the  force,  though  it  does  not  change  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  sentence.  The  plural  form  refers  to  the  disciples,  who  were 
the  ostensible  object  of  attack,  although  the  censure  was  intended  for 
their  master,  as  sanctioning  their  conduct  by  his  presence,  if  not  his 
participation.  (See  above,  on  9,  11,  where  the  charge  is  made  against 
himself,  although  addressed  to  his  disciples). 

8.  For  the  Son  of  man  is  Lord  even  of  the  sahhath 
day. 

For  the  Son  of  man  is  lord  (not  only  of  all  other  things  affecting 
human  happiness,  but  also  or  even)  of  the  Sahhath,  which  you  might 
suppose  to  be  exempt  from  his  control.  Grotius  and  others  have  en¬ 
deavoured  to  exj)lain  Son  of  man,  in  this  place,  as  denoting  any  man 
or  man  in  general.  The  sense  will  then  be  that  as  the  Sabbath  was 
appointed  for  man’s  benefit,  it  is  his  prerogative  to  regulate  and  use  it 
for  his  own  advantage.  But  to  this  construction,  although  specious, 
there  are  two  invincible  objections,  one  of  form  and  one  of  substance. 
The  sentiment  expressed  is  not  in  keeping  with  the  tenor  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  which  everywhere  deny  to  man  the  right  of  abrogating  or  sus¬ 
pending  a  divine  institution  for  his  own  good  and  at  his  own  discretion. 
Such  a  prerogative  can  belong  only  to  a  divine  person,  i.  e.  to  God  as 
God,  or  to  God  incarnate  in  the  person  of  Messiah.  Besides,  it  is 
only  to  this  person,  the  Messiah,  that  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures  will 
allow  the  title  Son  of  Man  to  be  applied.  (See  above,  on  8,  20.)  The 
meaning  of  the  sentence  therefore  must  be,  that  the  Sabbath  having- 
been  ordained  for  man,  not  for  any  individual,  but  for  the  whole  race, 
it  must  needs  be  subject  to  the  Son  of  Man,  who  is  its  head  and  rep¬ 
resentative,  its  sovereign  and  redeemer.  This  implies  that  though  the 
Sabbath,  in  its  essence,  is  perpetual,  the  right  of  modifying  and  con¬ 
trolling  it  belongs  to  Christ,  and  can  be  exercised  only  under  his 
authority.  This  sentence  differs  from  the  parallel  in  Mark  (2,  28), 
only  in  the  collocation  of  the  words,  the  last  words  here  being  Son  of 
Man. 

9.  And  when  he  was  departed  thence,  he  went  into 
their  synagogue  : 


328 


MATTHEW  12,9.10.11. 


Matthew  records  another  charge  of  Sabbath-breaking,  probably  to 
show  how  various  were  the  outward  occasions  of  such  opposition  ;  to 
illustrate  the  variety  of  Christ’s  defences  ;  and  to  mark  the  first  con¬ 
certed  plan  for  his  destruction.  The  synagogue^  most  probably  the 
one  in  Capernaum.  The  absence  of  any  more  specific  note  of  time 
shows  that  exact  chronological  order  was  of  small  importance  to  the 
author’s  object.  There  is  more  precision  as  to  this  point  in  the  parallel 
account  of  Luke  (6,  11).  There  is  no  ground  in  the  text  of  either 
gospel  for  the  conjecture  of  some  writers,  that  the  presence  of  this 
suflerer  had  been  contrived  in  order  to  entrap  Christ.  The  constant 
application  for  his  healing  aid  precludes  the  necessity  of  such  a  suppo¬ 
sition,  and  indeed  suggests  that  this  was  only  one  of  manj'’  miracles 
performed  at  this  time,  and  is  recorded  in  detail  on  account  of  its  im¬ 
portant  bearing  on  the  progress  of  Christ’s  ministry. 

10.  And,  behold,  there  was  a  man  which  had  (his) 
hand  withered.  And  they  ashed  him,  saying.  Is  it  law¬ 
ful  to  heal  on  the  sabbath  days  that  they  might  accuse 
him. 

Withered,  literally,  dried,  or  dried  up,  elsewhere  applied  to  liquids, 
(Mark  5, 29.  Kev.  16, 12),  and  to  plants  (Mark  4, 6.  11,  20.  James  1, 11), 
but  also  to  the  pining  away  of  the  human  body.  The  passive  participle 
in  Mark  (3,  1),  adds  to  the  meaning  of  the  adjective  {dry)  employed 
by  Matthew  and  Luke,  the  idea  that  it  w'as  not  a  congenital  infirmity, 
but  the  effect  of  disease  or  accident,  the  more  calamitous  because  it 
was  the  right  hand  that  was  thus  disabled  (Luke  6,  6.)  A  similar 
affection,  preternaturally  caused,  was  that  of  Jeroboam  (1  Kings  13, 
4-6).  We  have  here  a  striking  indication  that  the  opposition  to  our 
Saviour  was  becoming  more  inveterate  and  settled,  so  that  his  enemies 
not  only  censured  what  he  did,  but  watched  for  some  occasion  to  find 
fault  with  him.  Questioned,  or  catechized,  the  vocal  expression  cor¬ 
responding  to  the  watching  mentioned  by  Mark  (3,  2).  Whether  he 
would,  literally,  if  he  will,  a  form  of  speech  which  represents  the 
scene  as  actually  passing.  On  the  Sabbath  days,  literally,  the  Sabbaths, 
a  form  used  above  in  v.  1,  and  there  explained.  The  motive  of  their 
asking  was  not  simply  curiosity,  but  a  deliberate  desire  to  entrap  him. 
That  they  might  accuse  him,  not  in  conversation  merely,  but  before 
the  local  judges,  who  were  probably  identical  with  the  elders  or  rulers 
of  the  synagogue,  or  at  all  events  present  at  the  stated  time  and  place 
of  public  worship.  The  subject  of  the  verb  is  not  expressed  by  Mark 
and  Matthew,  although  easily  supplied  from  the  foregoing  context  (v. 
2),  and  from  the  parallel  account  in  Luke  (6,  7),  where  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  are  expressly  mentioned. 


11.  And  be  said  unto  tbem,  Wbat  man  shall  there  be 
among  you  that  shall  have  one  sheep,  and  if  it  fall  into 


MATTHEW  12,11-14.  329 

a  pit  on  the  sabbath  day,  will  he  not  lay  hold  on  it,  and 
lift  (it)  out  ?  ’ 

12.  How  much  then  is  a  man  better  than  a  sheep  ? 
Wherefore  it  is  lawful  to  do  well  on  the  sabbath  days. 

He  exposes  their  formality  and  inconsistency,  by  showing  that  the 
right  which  they  denied  to  him  in  public,  and  in  reference  to  human 
subjects,  they  habitually  exercised  in  private,  and  in  reference  to  the 
lower  animals.  Whether  this  were  done  from  disinterested  kindness, 
or  from  regard  to  the  value  of  the  object,  the  conclusion  was  clear  and 
irresistible  in  favour  of  extending  the  same  practice  to  a  suffering  man. 
This  conclusion  is  suggested  in  the  first  clause  of  v.  12,  while  in  the 
other  it  is  formally  applied  in  answer  to  their  captious  question.  To 
do  does  not  mean  to  do  rights  which  is  always  lawful,  but  to  do 
good^  to  confer  a  benefit  or  favour  upon  others. 

13.  Then  saith  be  to  tbe  man,  Stretch  forth  thy 
hand.  And  be  stretched  (it)  forth  ;  and  it  was  restored 
whole,  like  as  the  other. 

There  is  here  no  mention  of  external  contact,  nor  of  any  other 
order  or  command  than  that  to  stretch  out  the  hand,  which  could  only 
be  obeyed  when  the  miracle  was  wrought,  and  is  therefore  not  re¬ 
quired  as  a  previous  condition.  This  is  often  and  justly  used  to  illus¬ 
trate  the  act  of  faith,  which  is  performed  in  obedience  to  divine  com¬ 
mand  and  by  the  aid  of  the  same  power  which  requires  it.  Whole^  in 
the  old  English  sense  of  sound  or  healthy. 

14.  Then  the  Pharisees  went  out,  and  held  a  council 
against  him,  how  they  might  destroy  him. 

One  of  the  most  important  circumstances  of  this  case,  for  the  sakq 
of  which  it  was  perhaps  recorded,  is  the  effect  which  it  produced  upon 
the  Pharisees  or  High-Church  Jewish  party,  whose  religious  tenets 
brought  them  into  constant  opposition  to  the  Sadducees  or  latitudina- 
rians  (see  above,  on  3,  7).  Toole  counsel  is  a  phrase  peculiar  to  Mat¬ 
thew  (12,  14.  22,  15.  27,  1.  7.  28,  12),  Mark’s  equivalent  to  which  is 
made  counsel^  i.  e.  consultation.  How  they  might  destroy  him^  not  for 
any  past  offences,  but  how  they  might  take  advantage  of  his  words  or 
acts  to  rid  them  of  so  dangerous  an  enemy.  The  motives  of  this  con¬ 
certed  opposition  were  no  doubt  various,  religious,  political,  and  per¬ 
sonal,  in  different  degrees  and  cases.  That  it  should  have  been 
deliberately  organized  at  this  time,  out  of  such  discordant  elements 
(Mark  3,  7)  and  in  the  face  of  such  conclusive  evidence,  can  only  be  as¬ 
cribed  to  the  infatuation  under  which  they  acted  (Luke  C,  11). 


330 


MATTHEW  12,15-18. 


15.  But  when  Jesus  knew  (it),  he  withdrew  himself 
from  thence  :  and  great  multitudes  followed  him,  and  he 
healed  them  all  ; 

In  consequence  of  this  combination  and  the  dangers  which  arose 
from  it,  our  Lord  withdrew  from  Capernaum  and  other  towns  of  Gal¬ 
ilee,  to  the  shores  of  the  lake,  where  he  would  be  less  exposed  to  craft 
or  violence,  and  better  able  to  escape  without  a  miracle.  This  retreat 
before  his  enemies  was  prompted,  not  by  fear,  but  by  that  wise  dis¬ 
cretion  which  was  constantly  employed  in  the  selection  and  the  use  of 
the  necessary  means  for  the  promotion  of  the  great  end  which  he 
came  to  accomplish.  As  it  entered  into  the  divine  plan  that  his 
great  atoning  work  should  be  preceded  by  a  prophetic  ministry  of 
several  years’  duration,  the  design  of  which  was  to  indoctrinate.,  the 
people  in  the  nature  of  his  kingdom,  to  prepare  the  way  for  its  erec¬ 
tion,  and  to  train  the  men  by  whom  it  should  be  organized,  it  formed 
no  small  part  of  his  work  to  check  and  regulate  the  progress  of  events, 
so  as  not  to  precipitate  the  consummation,  but  secure  and  complete 
the  requisite  preparatory  process.  That  the  movement  here  recorded 
was  intended  to  elude  his  eii'emies,  whose  influence  was  greatest  in  the 
towns,  and  not  to  escape  the  concourse  of  the  people,  may  be  seen  from 
the  actual  result  as  Mark  describes  it  (3,  7).  And  he  healed  them  al\ 
i.  e.  all  who  needed  and  sought  healing  at  his  hands. 

16.  Andcliarged  them  that  they  should  not  make  him 
known  : 

This  general  statement  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  more  specific 
one  in  Mark  (3,  12)  in  reference  to  evil  spirits.  Mark  has  simply  se¬ 
lected,  in  accordance  with  his  previous  details,  which  Matthew  does 
not  give,  a  single  class  out  of  many  who  were  thus  forbidden.  While 
the  sick  in  general  were  required  not  to  ma;ke  him  known  by  giving 
undue  or  premature  publicity  to  wha.t  they  had  experienced,  a  particu¬ 
lar  restriction  was  imposed  upon  the  more  specific  testimony  borne  to 
his  Messiahship  by  evil  spirits.  The  word  here  rendered  charged  means 
originally  to  estimate  or  value  ;  then  to  impose  a  fine  by  way  of  pun¬ 
ishment  ;  then  to  punish  by  reproof,  which  in  its  usual  meaning  (see 
above,  on  8,  26,  and  below,  on  16,  22.  17, 18.  19, 13.  20,  31).  Here  it 
can  only  mean  to  threaten  with  severe  rebuke  in  case  of  disobedience. 


17.  That  it  might  he  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by 
Esaias  the  prophet ,  saying, 

18.  Behold  my  servant,  whom  I  have  chosen  ;  my  be¬ 
loved,  in  whom  my  soul  is  well  pleased  :  I  will  put  my 


M  A  T  T  H  E  AV"  12^  18.  19.  331 

Spirit  upon  him,  and  he  shall  shew  judmenr  to  the  Gen¬ 
tiles. 

It  is  characteristic  of  this  gospel,  that  while  it  passes  over  the 
minute  details  of  Mark  (3,  7-9)  as  to  the  concourse  upon  this  occasion, 
it  again  pauses  in  the  narrative  to  point  out  the  fulfilment  of  an  ancient 
prophecy,  still  extant  in  the  writings  of  Isaiah  (42, 1-4).  The  original 
passage  exhibits  to  our  view  the  servant  of  Jehovah,  as  the  messenger 
or  representative  of  God  among  the  nations,  and  describes  his  mode  of 
operation  as  not  violent  but  peaceful,  and  the  effects  of  his  influence  as 
not  natural  but  spiritual.  The  quotation  varies  so  entirely  from  the 
Septuagint  version,  even  in  expression  where  the  meaning  is  the  same, 
that  it  must  be  regarded  as  an  independent  and  direct  translation  from 
the  Hebrew.  The  literal  meaning  of  the  first  verse  is  as  follows : — 
“  Behold  my  servant,  I  will  hold  him  fast,  my  chosen  one  (in  whom) 
my  soul  delights;  I  have  given  (or  put)  my  spirit  upon  him;  judg¬ 
ment  to  the  nations  shall  he  cause  to  go  forth.”  The  word  servant^ 
here  as  in  the  Septuagint,  is  the  one  employed  above  in  8,  6-13,  and 
suggesting  the  idea  both  of  son  and  servant,  thus  furnishing  a  link 
between  the  prophecy  and  its  fulfilment.  The  only  variation  from  the 
Hebrew  in  this  sentence  is  the  substitution  of  the  verb  to  choose  for 
one  that  means  to  hold  fast  for  the  purpose  of  sustaining.  But  this 
has  no  effect  upon  the  general  sense,  and  may  be  readily  resolved  into 
an  authoritative  modification  of  the  text  b}^  a  second  inspired  writer, 
as  a  sort  of  gloss  or  comment,  expressing  what  is  really  implied  in  the 
original,  and  bringing  out  more  prominently  what  was  latent.  Thus 
we  learn  in  this  case,  that  the  servant  of  Jehovah  was  sustained  be¬ 
cause  he  was  a  chosen  instrument  or  agent  set  apart  for  a  specific  ser¬ 
vice.  There  is  an  obvious  allusion  to  this  verse,  or  rather  a  direct  ap¬ 
plication  of  it  made  by  God  himself,  in  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
on  our  Saviour  at  his  baptism,  and  in  the  words  pronounced  from 
heaven  then  and  at  his  transfiguration  (see  above,  on  2,  17,  and  be¬ 
low,  on  17,  5).  The  -w ordi  judgment  has  been  variously  explained,  but 
the  most  satisfactory  interpretation  is  the  common  one,  which  under¬ 
stands  the  word  as  a  description  of  the  true  religion,  and  the  whole 
clause  as  predicting  its  diffusion.  That  Christ  was  sent  to  the  Jews 
and  not  the  Gentiles,  is  only  true  of  his  personal  ministry  on  earth 
(see  below,  on  15,  24),  and  not  of  his  whole  work  as  continued  by  his 
followers  (see  below,  on  28,  19).  All  that  is  here  important  is,  that 
the  evangelist  applies  to  Jesus  the  prophetic  description  of  the  Messiah 
as  a  messenger  from  God  to  man. 


19.  He  shall  not  strive,  nor  cry;  neither  shall  any 
man  hear  his  voice  in  the  streets. 

This  is  the  main  quotation,  to  which  the  preceding  verso  is  merely 
introductory.  The  variations  from  the  Hebrew  are  either  wholly  un¬ 
important  or  explicable  on  the  principle  before  laid  down.  Instead  of  two 


332 


MATTHEW  12,19.20. 


verbs  meaning  nearly  the  same  thing,  to  cry  and  to  raise  (the  voice), 
only  one  is  given  and  the  other  is  replaced  by  the  verb  to  str  ive,  an  in¬ 
timation  that  the  thing  denied  is  not  mere  noise,  but  quarrelsome 
commotions.  The  quotation  has  sometimes  been  referred  to  our 
Saviour’s  mild  and  modest  demeanor,  but  it  rather  has  respect  to  the 
nature  of  his  kingdom,  and  the  means  by  which  it  was  to  be  establish¬ 
ed.  His  forbidding  the  announcement  of  the  miracle  is  not  recorded 
simply  as  a  trait  of  personal  character,  but  rather  as  implying  that  a 
public  recognition  of  his  claims  was  not  included  in  his  present  pur¬ 
pose. 


20.  A  bruised  reed  shall  lie  not  break,  and  smoking 
flax  shall  he  not  quench,  till  he  send  forth  judgment  unto 
victory. 

This  verse  continues  the  description  of  the  mode  in  which  the  Mes¬ 
siah  was  to  bring  forth  judgment  to  the  nations,  or  in  other  words  to 
spread  the  true  religion.  It  was  not  to  be  by  clamor  or  by  violence. 
The  first  of  these  ideas  is  expressed  in  the  preceding  verse,  the  last  in 
this.  That  such  is  the  true  import  of  the  words,  is  clear  from  the  ad¬ 
dition  of  the  last  clause,  which  would  be  unmeaning  if  the  words  re¬ 
lated  merely  to  a  compassionate  and  sympathetic  temper.  That 
this  verse  is  included  in  Matthew’s  quotation,  shows  that  he  did 
not  quote  the  one  before  it  as  descriptive  of  a  modest  and  retiring 
disposition.  For  although  such  a  temper  might  be  proved  by  Christ’s 
prohibiting  the  publication  of  his  miracles,  this  prohibition  could  not 
have  been  cited  as  an  evidence  of  tenderness  and  mildness.  The 
only  way  in  which  the  whole  quotation  can  be  made  appropriate  to 
the  case  in  hand,  is  by  supposing  that  it  was  meant  to  be  descrip¬ 
tive,  not  merely  of  our  Saviour’s  human  virtues,  but  of  the  nature  of 
his  kingdom  and  of  the  means  by  which  it  was  to  be  established. 
That  he  was  both  lowly  and  compassionate  is  true,  but  it  is  not  the 
truth  which  he  established  by  his  conduct  upon  this  occasion,  nor  the 
truth  which  the  evangelist  intended  to  illustrate  by  the  citation  of 
these  words.  As  well  in  their  original  connection  as  in  IMatthew’s  ap¬ 
plication  of  them,  they  describe  that  kingdom  which  was  not  of  this 
world ;  which  came  not  with  observation  (Luke  17,  20) ;  which  was 
neither  meat  nor  drink,  but  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the 
Holy  Ghost  (Rom.  14, 17)  ;  which  was  founded  and  promoted  not  by 
might  nor  by  power,  but  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  (Zech.  4,  C) ;  and  of 
which  its  founder  said  (John  18,  Z^),If  my  Jdngdomwere  of  this  world, 
then  would  my  servants  fight,  that  I  should  not  he  delivered  to  the  Jews, 
hut  now  is  my  kingdom  not  from  hence.  And  again  (John  18,  37),  when 
Pilate  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  a  king  then  ?  Jesus  answered,  Thou  sayest 
(rightly)  that  I  am  a  king  ;  to  this  end  was  Thorn,  and  for  this  cause 
I  came  into  the  world,  that  I  should  hear  witness  to  the  truth  ;  every 
one  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice.  How  perfectly  does  this 
august  description  tally  with  the  great  prophetic  picture  of  the  Servant 


383 


MATTHEW  12,  20.  21.  22. 

of  Jehovah,  who  was  to  bring  forth  judgment  to  the  nations,  and  in 
doing  so  was  not  to  cry  or  raise  his  voice,  or  let  men  hear  it  in  the 
streets,  nor  by  brutal  force  to  break  the  crushed  reed  or  quench  the 
dim  wick,  but  to  conquer  by  healing  and  imparting  strength.  Here 
again  the  variation  from  the  Hebrew  is  explanatory,  the  obscure 
phrase  ly  ovfor  the  truthhamg  exchanged  for  the  explicit  one, 

to  mctory.  triumphantly,  the  other  idea  having  been  sufficiently  express¬ 
ed  in  V.  18.  This  condensation  and  elucidation  of  the  prophecy  shows 
clearly  that  the  changes  in  its  form  are  not  fortuitous  nor  inadvertent,  but 
intentional  and  full  of  meaning.  It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  the 
word  in  the  original  which  means  dim  or  feeble  is  translated  smoking 
both  in  the  Septuagint  and  Gospel,  but  by  Greek  words  altogether  dif¬ 
ferent  (KaTTVi(,6ix€Vou  and  rvcpogevov). 


21.  And  in  his  name  shall  the  Gentiles  trust. 

With  the  same  disposition  or  determination  to  avoid  the  repetition 
of  synonymous  expressions,  Matthew  passes  over  the  first  clause  in 
the  next  verse  of  Isaiah  (42,  4),  and  closes  his  quotation  with  a  para¬ 
phrase  of  the  second.  In  Ms  name  shall  the  Gentiles  hope  is  really 
equivalent  in  meaning  for  his  law  shall  the  Gentiles  wait.  The 
essential  idea  in  both  cases  is  the  absolute  dependence  of  the  world  at 
large  upon  the  mission  of  Messiah  for  salvation.  As  the  first  part  of 
the  prophec}'-  was  cited  as  an  introduction,  so  this  last  part  is  added  to 
give  roundness  and  completeness  to  the  whole  quotation.  At  the  same 
time,  these  supplementary  expressions,  although  not  what  the  author 
meant  especially  to  quote,  serve  the  incidental  but  important  purpose 
of  suggesting,  in  the  language  of  a  prophet,  the  extent  of  the  Messiah’s 
mission  and  the  ultimate  conversion  of  the  Gentiles. 

22.  Then  was  brought  unto  him  one  possessed  with  a 
devil,  blind,  and  dumb  ;  and  he  healed  him,  insomuch 
that  the  blind  and  dumb  both  spake  and  saw. 

Then  is  here  to  be  indefinitely  understood  as  meaning  either  at  that 
time,  referring  to  the  whole  period  of  Christ’s  public  ministry,  or  after¬ 
wards^  and  on  a  different  occasion.  This  is  not  only  agreeable  to  Mat¬ 
thew’s  usage  and  the  method  of  his  history,  but  removes  all  seeming 
discrepancy  with  the  other  gospels  as  to  the  date  of  the  occurrence, 
which  is  here  recorded  as  another  instance  of  malignant  opposition  on 
the  part  of  the  Jewish  leaders.  The  occasion  was  a  miracle  sufficiently 
remarkable  even  in  itself  considered,  but  which  probably  would  not 
have  been  recorded  in  detail  but  for  the  reason  just  suggested,  and  the 
memorable  warning  which  it  drew  from  the  lips  of  Christ.  This  is  the 
more  probable  because  of  the  resemblance  which  it  bears  to  the  mir¬ 
acle  in  9,  32.  33,  where  demoniacal  possession  was  combined  with 
dumbness,  to  which  blindness  was  added  in  the  case  before  us. 


334 


MATTHEW  12,23.24. 


23.  And  all  tlie  people  were  amazed,  and  said,  Is  not 
tliis  the  Son  of  David  ? 

Another  reason  for  particularly  mentioning  this  rniracle  was  the 
effect  it  produced  upon  the  people,  not  merely  filling  them  with 
wonder,  so  that  they  were  out  of  their  normal  state  and  as  it  were 
beside  themselves  (e^/crrayro),  but  leading  them  to  ask  whether  this 
were  not  the  Son  of  David,  his  descendant  and  successor,  which,  as  we 
have  seen  (above,  on  9,  27),  had  become  a  standing  designation  of  the 
Messiah.  This  alarming  question,  showing  whither  the  popular  irn- 
pi  essions  were  now  tending,  affords  an  explanation,  not  contained  in 
Mark’s  account  (3,  22),  of  the  sudden  and  malignant  accusation  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  next  verse. 


24.  But  when  the  Pharisees  heard  (it),  they  said^ 
This  (fellow)  doth  not  cast  out  devils,  hut  by  Beelzebub 
the  prince  of  the  devils. 

The  speakers  are  described  by  Luke  (11,  15)  as  some  of  the  multi¬ 
tude  by  whom  the  miracle  was  witnessed  ;  by  INlatthew  more  definitely 
as  the  Pharisees,  or  members  of  the  rigorous  Jewish  party;  but  by 
Mark  (3,  22)  still  more  preciseljq  as  the  Scribes  who  had  come  down 
from  Jerusalem^  perhaps  on  hearing  of  our  Lord’s  return  from  his 
itinerant  labours  to  Capernaum.  Tlie  expression  is  too  definite  to  bo 
explained  of  a  mere  accidental  presence,  or  a  coming  down  on  other 
business.  Nor  is  it  in  the  least  unlikely,  that  the  general  agitation 
and  excitement  of  the  public  mind  by  Christ’s  extraordinary  words 
and  works  had  now  alarmed  the  rulers  of  the  Jewish  church,  and  led 
them  to  regard  it  as  a  public  question  of  the  highest  national  impor¬ 
tance.  This  is  rendered  still  more  probable  by  John’s  account  of  the 
proceedings  in  the  case  of  John  the  Baptist,  when  a  deputation  went 
into  the  wilderness  to  ask  him  whether  he  was  the  Messiah  (John  1, 
19.  24).  The  very  answer  which  they  then  received  (ib.  27,  28)  must 
have  made  them  more  solicitous  and  watchful  against  new  pretenders 
to  the  Messianic  office.  It  is  highly  important  to  remember  that  our 
Lord  did  not  appear  abruptly  on  the  scene  as  a  new  personage, 
entirely  unconnected  with  the  previous  history  of  Israel,  but  claimed, 
first  tacitly  and  then  more  openly,  to  be  the  great  deliverer  promised 
in  the  ancient  Scriptures,  and  for  ages  looked  for  by  the  chosen  people. 
Hence  the  growing  agitation  which  his  ministry  occasioned  was  not 
regarded  as  a  transient  popular  disturbance,  but  as  the  beginning  of  a 
national  and  spiritual  revolution.  But  although  the  motive  was  the 
same  in  either  case,  the  course  now  taken  by  the  leading  Jews  was 
not  entirely  the  same  with  that  before  adopted.  Then,  the  messengers 
were  sent  directly  to  J ohn,  and  demanded  categorically  who  he  was, 
or  what  he  claimed  to  be  (John  1,  19).  Now,  they  are  merely  sent 
to  watch  our  Lord’s  proceedings,  and  if  possible  to  stem  the  mighty 
current  of  opinion  which  was  setting  in  his  favour,  by  insidious  sug¬ 
gestion  or  malignant  slander.  Then,  the  persons  sent  were  priests  and 


335 


MATTHEW  12,24. 

Levites ;  now  they  are  only  Scribes,  but  in  both  cases  Pharisees, 
and  sent  directly  from  Jerusalem  (compare  John  1,  19.  24).  It 
is  possible,  indeed,  that  even  in  the  other  point,  though  not  ex¬ 
pressly  mentioned  here,  the  deputations  were  alike;  for  as  the 
Scribes,  as  the  traditional  expounders  of  the  law,  were  mostly  if  not 
always  Pharisees,  so  they  were  no  doubt  often,  if  not  usually,  priests 
or  Levites,  as  the  sacerdotal  tribe  was  specially  entrusted  with  the  con¬ 
servation  and  interpretation  of  the  law  (Lev.  10,  11.  Deut.  24,  8.  2 
Chr.  15,  3.  35,  3.  Neh.  8,  7.  Jer.  18,  18.  Ez.  7,  26.  Mai.  2,  7).  It  is  a 
serious  error  to  suppose  that  these  descriptive  titles  are  exclusive  of  each 
other,  and  denote  so  many  independent  classes,  whereas  they  only  de¬ 
note  different  characters  or  relations,  which  might  all  meet  in  one  and 
the  same  person,  as  being  at  the  same  time  a  priest  and  Levite  by  descent 
and  sacred  oflSce,  a  Scribe  by  profession,  and  a  Pharisee  in  sentiment  and 
party- connection.  These  Scribes  who  had  come  down  from  Jerusalem, 
unable  to  deny  the  fact  of  the  miraculous  healing,  used  the  only  other 
means  at  their  disposal  to  discredit  him  who  wrought  it,  by  malignantly 
accusing  him  of  impious  collusion  with  the  very  demons  whom  he  dispos¬ 
sessed.  This,  while  it  shows  their  growing  enmity  and  malice,  also  proves 
the  weakness  of  their  cause,  and  the  reality  of  Christ’s  miraculous 
achievements,  which  they  surely  would  have  questioned  if  the  evidence 
had  not  been  overwhelming.  Their  very  charge  against  him,  therefore, 
may  be  reckoned  as  involuntary  testimony  to  the  truth  of  his  preten¬ 
sions  to  a  superhuman  power  ;  and  their  failure  or  refusal  to  acknowl¬ 
edge  this  as  an  abundant  confirmation  of  his  Messianic  claims  can  only 
be  ascribed  to  their  infatuation  and  judicial  blindness  (compare  Luke 

6,  11.)  Beelzebul)^  or  as  it  is  written  in  all  Greek  manuscripts, 

l)ul.  The  latter  is  either  a  euphonic  or  fortuitous  corruption  of  the 
former,  or  an  intentional  derisive  change,  like  that  of  Sycliem  into  Sycliar 
(John  4,  5).  On  the  latter  supposition  it  is  commonly  explained  as 
meaning  Dung-god^  an  expression  of  contempt  for  Beelzebub,  the  Fly- 
god  of  the  Philistines  (2  Kings  1,  2.  3.^  6),  either  so  called  as  protect¬ 
ing  his  worshippers  from  noxious  insects,'  or  as  being  himself  worship¬ 
ped  under  an  insect  form.  This  contemptuous  description  of  a  heathen 
deity  is  perfectly  agreeable  to  Jewish  usage,  and  its  application  in  the 
case  before  us  a  conclusive  proof  of  the  extreme  to  which  these 
Scribes  had  carried  their  contempt  and  hatred  of  the  Saviour,  when 
they  chose  the  grossest  nickname  of  a  false  god  to  describe  the  un¬ 
seen  power  by  whose  aid  he  wrought  his  miracles.  The  preposition 
{in,  not  l)y)  denotes  not  mere  alliance  or  assistance,  but  the  most 
intimate  personal  union,  such  as  existed  in  all  cases  of  possession  (9,  34.) 
‘It  is  by  virtue  of  his  union  and  identification  with  the  ruler  of 
the  demons  that  he  casts  them  out.’  The  word  translated  prince  is 
properly  a  participle,  meaning  one  who  goes  first,  takes  the  lead,  pre¬ 
sides,  or  governs.  As  a  noun,  it  denotes  magistrates  in  general,  and 
in  Grecian  history  the  Arclions,  or  chief  magistrates  of  Athens.  It  is 
applied  in  the  New  Testament  to  Moses,  as  the  national  leader  (Acts 

7,  35),  to  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  or  national  council  (John  3,  I.  7, 
50),  and  to  the  local  elders  or  rulers  of  the  synagogue  (Luke  8,  41), 


33G 


MATTHEW  12,24.25. 


but  also  to  the  Evil  One,  or  leader  of  the  fallen  angels,  as  the  ^‘prince 
of  this  world  ”  (John  12,  31.  14,  30.  16, 11),  as  the  prince  of  the  power 
of  the  air  ”  (Eph.  2,  2),  and  as  the  “  prince  of  the  devils  ”  (9, 34).  This  last 
word  is  an  inexact  translation,  as  the  Scriptures  recognize  only  one  De¬ 
mi^  but  a  multitude  of  demons  (see  Mark  5,  9. 15).  The  former  is  one  of 
the  names  given  to  the  Evil  One  by  way  of  eminence,  as  the  slanderer 
or  false  accuser  of  mankind,  whereas  Satan  represents  him  as  their 
enemy  or  adversary.  (See  above  on  4,  1,  and  below  on  v.  26.)  The 
other  term,  commonly  translated  devils,  is  properly  an  adjective, 
and  originally  means  dwine,  or  rather  superhuman,  comprehending  all 
degrees  and  kinds  of  gods  belonging  to  the  Greek  mythology,  but 
specially  applied  to  those  of  an  inferior  rank,  and  bearing  some  par¬ 
ticular  relation  to  individual  men  as  their  good  or  evil  genius,  in  which 
sense  Xenophon  employs  it  to  describe  the  tutelary  monitor  of  Socrates, 
It  is  perhaps  on  account  of  this  specific  usage  of  the  word  that  it  is 
used  in  the  New  Testament  to  designate  the  fallen  angels,  or  evil 
spirits,  as  connected  with  the  history  of  our  race,  and  especially  as 
active  in  those  singular  affections  which  derive  from  them  the  name  of 
“  demoniacal  possessions.”  Of  these  demonia  or  demons,  Satan  the 
Devil,  is  here  called  the  prince  or  chief,  but  under  the  derisive  and 
disgusting  name  Beelzebul,  or  Dung-god.  It  is  a  possible,  though  not  a 
necessary  supposition,  that  this  application  of  the  name  was  customary 
and  familiar.  It  is  more  probable,  however,  as  we  do  not  find  it  in 
the  oldest  Jewish  books  now  extant,  that  it  was  devised  for  the  occa¬ 
sion,  as  a  bitter  sarcasm  against  Jesus,  whom  it  virtually  represents  as 
united  in  the  closest  manner  to  the  most  unclean  of  spirits,  and  by  his 
authority  and  power  dispossessing  his  inferior  agents.  This  view  of 
the  matter  is  important,  as  implying  a  terrific  aggravation  of  the  sin 
committed  by  these  Scribes  and  Pharisees  in  representing  the  immedi¬ 
ate  acts  of  God  as  operations  not  of  Satan  merely,  but  of  Beelzebub, 
which,  though  applied  to  the  same  being,  is  peculiarly  insulting,  as  it 
identifies  him  with  the  Fly -god  of  the  old  Philistines,  and  the  Dung-god 
into  which  this  idol  had  been'  changed  by  the  bitterness  of  J ewish 
controversial  satire. 

25.  And  Jesus  knew  their  thoughts,  and  said  unto 
them,  Every  kingdom  divided  against  itself  is  brought  to 
desolation  ;  and  every  city  or  house  divided  against  itself 
shall  not  stand. 

The  first  illustrative  comparison  is  taken  from  a  Icingdom,  a  state, 
a  body  politic,  implying  not  a  mere  aggregation  of  men,  but  organic 
life  and  unity  of  principle  and  interest.  The  fact  alleged  is  not  that 
all  intestine  strife  or  division  is  destructive  to  a  state,  which  is  not 
universally  or  always  true,  but  that  a  state  which  wars  against  itself,  so 
far  as  in  it  lies,  contributes  to  its  own  destruction.  If  such  a  policy  in 
human  kingdoms  would  be  justly  reckoned  suicidal,  and  at  variance 
with  the  end  for  which  the  state  exists,  how  can  that  which  would  be 


MATTHEW  12,25.20 


337 


folly  in  a  human  sovereign  be  imputed  to  the  most  astute  and  crafty, 
as  well  as  the  most  spiteful  and  malignant  being  in  the  universe? 
The  argument  involved  in  this  comparison  is  not  merely  that  the 
course  supposed  would  be  injurious,  or  ruinous,  and  therefore  Satan 
cannot  be  supposed  to  take  it,  but  that  it  would  be  self-contradictory 
and  foolish,  and  at  variance  with  the  very  end  for  which  he  has  been 
plotting  and  deceiving  since  the  world  began.  He  is  not  too  good  to 
pursue  such  a  course,  but  he  is  far  too  cunning.  Every  hingdom^ 
thus  divided  and  at  war  against  itself,  is  hrouglit  to  desolation, 
or  as  Mark  has  it  (3,  24),  cannot  stand,  an  expression  also  used  by 
Matthew  in  the  latter  clause  of  this  verse,  and  more  significant 
in  Greek,  because  the  form  is  passive,  and  although  in  usage  sub¬ 
stituted  for  the  active,  still  retaining  something  of  its  proper 
force,  and  therefore  suggesting  the  idea,  that  it  cannot  be  established, 
made  to  stand,  by  such  a  process.  The  use  of  this  expression  shows 
still  further,  that  the  reference  is  not  so  much  to  strife  between  the 
subjects  of  a  kingdom,  which  may  sometimes  be  essential  to  its  welfare, 
but  to  its  waging  war  against  itself,  the  state  (as  such)  opposing  its  own 
interests  and  aiming  at  its  own  destruction.  Such  a  case  may  be  im¬ 
possible,  or  never  really  occur  ,*  but  if  it  should,  the  state  would  be  its 
own  destroyer.  So  would  Satan,  if  he  should  do  likewise.  But  that 
he  who  is  called  Apollyon,  as  the  destroyer  of  others,  should  attempt 
self-destruction,  is  entirely  inconceivable.  Among  men,  suicide  im¬ 
plies  an  utter  ignorance  or  disbelief  of  all  futurity  5  but  no  such  incre¬ 
dulity  or  error  is  conceivable  in  one  who  knows  already  in  his  own 
experience  what  it  is  to  perish  and  yet  continue  to  exist ;  for  as  to 
this,  as  well  as  to  the  being  and  the  unity  of  God,  ‘-the  devils  also 
believe  and  tremble  ”  (James  2,  19).  The  same  thing  is  true  within  a 
sphere  still  narrower,  for  instance  in  a  family  or  household,  when  not 
only  divided,  i.  e.  composed  of  hostile  and  discordant  members,  but 
divided  against  itself,  i.  e.  arrayed  as  a  whole,  or  as  a  body,  against 
its  own  interest  or  existence.  That  this  is  the  true  point  of  our  Lord’s 
comparison,  is  shown  by  the  circumstance  that  both  his  illustrations 
are  derived  not  from  the  case  of  individuals  at  strife,  but  from  com¬ 
munities  or  aggregate  bodies,  large  or  small.  The  only  analogous  case 
that  could  have  been  adduced  from  the  experience  of  a  single  person, 
is  the  strange  one  of  a  man  divided  against  himself  and  striving  for  his 
own  destruction.  But  leaving  this  to  be  completed  by  his  hearers,  he 
proceeds  in  the  next  verse  to  apply  what  he  has  said  already. 

26.  And  if  Satan  cast  out  Satan,  lie  is  divided  against 
himself ;  how  shall  then  his  kingdom  stand  ? 

What  is  thus  true  of  a  kingdom  and  a  household  among  men  is  no 
less  true  of  Satan  ;  for  if  he  has  risen  up  against  himself,  and  been 
divided,  he  cannot  possibly  be  made  to  stand,  but  has  an  end,  or  ceases 
to  be  what  he  is.  Had  the  idea  of  division,  in  these  various  illustra¬ 
tions,  been  the  simple  one  of  some  opposing  others,  our  Lord  would  no 
doubt  have  applied  his  argument  or  principle  to  Satan’s  kingdom 

15 


338 


M  A  T  T  II E  W  12,  26.  27.  28. 


rather  than  himself ;  but  as  he  here  presents  the  paradoxical  idea  of 
Satan  as  an  individual  divided  into  two,  and  one  arrayed  against  the 
other,  w^e  may  safely  infer,  that  this  very  paradox  was  meant  to  be  the 
point  of  his  whole  argument.  If  they  had  said,  ISTeither  man  nor 
devil  can  be  thus  divided  so  as  to  make  war  upon  himself,  he  might 
have  answered,  How  absurd  then  upon  your  part  to  allege  such  a 
division,  by  accusing  me  of  being  in  alliance  with  my  opposite !  If 
Satan  could  be  thus  divided,  he  would  not  be  Satan,  but  would  have 
an  end.  (Mark  3,  26.) 

27.  And  if  I  by  Beelzebub  cast  out  devils,  by  wbom 
do  your  children  cast  (them)  out  ?  therefore  they  shall 
be  your  judges. 

This  is  a  second  refutation  of  their  charge,  to  wit,  that  by  parity  of 
reasoning  it  extended  to  their  own  exorcists,  which  they  would  not 
have  been  willing  to  admit.  The  Fathers  understood  by  your  children 
the  Apostles ;  but  it  is  not  easy  to  see  why  they  should  be  so  called, 
or  what  force  the  argument  could  have  in  that  case,  since  the  twelve 
avowedly  derived  their  miraculous  power  from  their  Master.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  fact  is  certain,  both  from  Scripture  aud  Josephus,  that 
exorcism  was  a  common  practice  with  the  Jews.  See  Acts  19,  13, 
where  itinerant  (not  vagabond)  exorcists  are  found  at  Ephesus,  the 
seven  sons  of  a  high  priest,  which  may  throw  some  light  upon  the 
term  sons  (or  childreii)  in  the  verse  before  us.  It  is  of  little  moment 
whether  they  really  exercised  this  power  or  not.  If  they  professed  and 
were  believed  to  do  so,  this  is  all  that  is  required  to  give  force  to  the 
argument  ad  hominem.  ‘  On  what  ground  can  you  ventu»’e  to  accuse 
me  of  collusion  with  the  devil,  when  your  own  sons  claim  to  exercise 
the  self-same  power  ?  Therefore  they  shall  be  your  judges,  to  convict 
3mu  of  injustice  and  malignity  in  ascribing  what  I  do  to  demoniacal 
collusion,  when  jmu  make  no  such  charge  against  them  and  their  real 
or  pretended  dispossessions.’ 

28.  But  if  I  cast  out  devils  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  then 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  come  unto  you. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  a  terrible  alternative  to  these  calumnious 
blasphemers,  if  I  cast  out  demons,  not  by  any  such  collusion  as  you 
impiously  charge  upon  me,  but  in  (possession  of  and  union  wnth)  the 
Spirit  of  God  (not  merely  as  an  attribute  or  influence,  but  as  a  divine 
person),  then  has  come  xipon  you  suddenly,  or  unawares,  surprised  j^ou 
by  its  unexpected  coming,  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  reign  of  the  Mes¬ 
siah,  which  the  nation  had  been  eagerly  expecting  for  ages,  but  had 
now  lost  sight  of  its  true  nature,  and  were  therefore  liable  and  likely 
to  be  taken  by  surprise.  Come  unto  you  is  entirely  too  weak  a  ver¬ 
sion  both  of  the  verb  and  preposition,  one  of  which  means  alwaj^s  to 
prevent  or  anticipate,  and  the  other  implies  superiority  of  some 
kind.  There  was  solemn  iron}’-  in  this  suggestion  to  the  leading  Jews, 
that  in  spite  of  their  unwillingness  to  see  or  own  it,  the  Messiah  and 
his  kingdom  might  be  come  after  all. 


MATTHEV\^  12,29.30.31. 


339 


29.  Or  else  how  can  one  enter  into  a  strong  man's 
house,  and  si)oil  his  goods,  except  he  first  hind  the  strong 
man  ?  and  then  he  will  spoil  his  house. 

He  adds  an  illustration  from  the  experience  of  common  life,  to  show 
the  conclusion  which  they  must  have  drawn  in  an  analogous  case,  and 
which  they  therefore  should  have  drawn  in  this.  When  a  rich  man, 
able  to  protect  his  goods,  is  robbed,  no  one  imagines  he  has  robbed 
himself,  but  every  one  regards  it  as  the  work,  not  only  of  an  enemy, 
but  also  of  an  enemy  superior  in  power.  So,  too,  when  they  saw 
Satan’s  instruments  and  agents  dispossessed  and  driven  out  by  Jesus, 
instead  of  arguing  that  he  and  Satan  were  in  league  together,  they 
ought  rather  to  have  argued  that  the  prince  of  this  world  was  cast 
out  and  judged  (John  12,  31.  10,  11),  that  he  had  met  his  match,  or 
rather  come  in  contact  with  his  conqueror.  What  clearer  proof  could 
be. demanded,  both  of  Christ’s  superiority  and  enmity  to  Satan,  than 
the  havoc  which  he  made  of  Satan’s  instruments  and  tools,  to  which 
there  may  be  some  allusion  in  the  word  translated  goods^  which  prop¬ 
erly  means  vessels,  utensils,  or  implements  of  any  kind  (see  Mark 
11,  16,  Luke  17,  31.  Acts  27,  17,)  and  may  be  well  applied  to  those 
inferior  demons  of  whom  Satan  was  the  prince  and  leader.  Or  else  is 
in  Greek  simply  or,  and  introduces  a  new  supposition,  as  in  v..  5,  and 
in  7,  4.  9.  ‘Or  if  this  analogy  does  not  convince  jmu,  take  another.’ 

30.  He  that  is  not  with  me  is  against  me  ;  and  he 
that  gathereth  not  with  me  scattereth  abroad. 

This  is  a  proverbial  expression,  hero  appealed  to  as  embodying  the 
common  sense  of  men  upon  a  certain  point,  to  wit,  the  fact  that  mere 
neutrality  paay  sometimes  be  the  worst  hostilit}^.  In  other  circum¬ 
stances  the  converse  may  be  also  true,  and  is  accordingly  embodied  in 
another  proverb  (Mark  9,  40).  So  far  are  these  two  aphorisms  from 
being  contradictory,  that  both  may  be  exemplified  in  the  experience 
of  the  very  same  persons.  For  example,  Nicodemus,  by  refusing  to 
take  part  with  the  Sanhedrim  against  our  Lord,  although  he  did  not 
venture  to  espouse  his  cause,  proved  himself  to  be  upon  his  side ;  but 
if  he  had  continued  the  same  course  when  the  crisis  had  arrived,  he 
would  equally  have  proved  himself  to  be  against  him.  The  pretence 
of  inconsistency  between  the  words  of  this  verse  and  the  saying  re¬ 
corded  in  Luke  (9,  50),  is  therefore  as  absurd  as  such  a  charge  would 
be  against  Solomon’s  twin  maxims  (Prov.  20,  4.  5). 


31.  Wherefore  I  say  unto  you,  All  manner  of  sin  and 
blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven  unto  men  ;  but  the  blas¬ 
phemy  (against)  the  (Holy)  Ghost  shall  not  be  forgiven 
unto  men. 

Thus  far  the  Lord  has  been  refuting  the  absurdity  of  their  malig- 


340 


MATTHEW  12,31,32. 


nant  charge,  without  regard  to  its  peculiarly  offensive  form  ;  and  as  he 
uses  the  word  Satan,  not  Beelzebub,  it  might  appear  that  he  intended 
to  pass  over  the  gross  insult  without  further  notice.  But  he  now  re¬ 
bukes  it,  indirectly  it  is  true,  but  with  so  awful  a  severity,  that  few 
can  read  the  words  and  even  partly  understand  them  without  shudder¬ 
ing.  This  passage,  with  its  parallels  in  Luke  and  Mark,  has  been 
always  and  unanimously  reckoned  one  of  the  most  shocking  and  alarm¬ 
ing  in  the  word  of  God ;  but  it  acquires  a  new  solemnity  and  terror 
when  considered  in  its  true  connection  with  what  goes  before,  and  not 
as  a  mere  insulated  and  detached  expression  of  a  mysterious  and  fear¬ 
ful  truth.  The  Scribes  had  represented  him  as  in  collusion  with  the 
devil,  under  an  unusual  and  most  offensive  name,  importing  that  the 
spirit  which  possessed  Christ  was  himself  an  unclean,  nay,  a  filthy 
spirit.  Instead  of  formally  reproving  them  for  this  unparalleled  affront 
to  himself  and  to  the  Spirit  who  was  in  him,  he  describes  to  them  the 
nature  of  the  sin  which  they  had  almost,  if  not  quite,  committed,  and 
the  doom  awaiting  it  hereafter.  Wherefore^  literally,  for  (or  on  ac¬ 
count  of)  this,  not  what  immediately  precedes,  but  the  whole  foregoing 
context.  As  if  he  had  said,  ‘  in  view  of  all  this,  and  because  your 
charge  against  me  is  so  groundless  and  malignant.’  I  say  unto  you  is 
an  expressive  formula  too  often  overlooked  as  pleonastic,  but  contain¬ 
ing  two  emphatic  pronouns,  ‘  I  the  Son  of  God,  and  yet  the  Son  of  Man, 
declare  to  you,  my  spiteful  enemies  and  false  accusers.’  All  manner, 
i.  e.  every  kind,  an  explanation  rather  than  a  simple  version  of  the 
Greek  words,  every  sin  and  hlasiAiemy  shall  l)e  remitted,  pardoned,  left 
unpunished,  unto  men,  not  all  the  sins  of  every  individual,  but  every 
kind  of  sin  to  some  one.  There  is  no  sin  (with  the  subsequent  excep¬ 
tion)  so  enormous  that  it  shall  pot  be  forgiven  to  some  sinner  who  com¬ 
mits  it.  This  is  said,  not  only  of  sin  in  general,  but  of  a  single  class  of 
sins,  among  the  most  appalling  that  can  be  committed  or  conceived  of. 
(For  the  origin  and  usage  of  the  words  hlasplieme  and  Masphemy,  see 
above,  on  9,  3.)  This  is  specified,  not  merely  to  enforce  the  previous 
declaration  by  applying  it  to  sins  directly  against  God,  and  in  the  last 
degree  insulting  to  him,  but  also  to  connect  it  with  the  case  in  hand, 
or  the  occasion  upon  which  it  was  pronounced.  The  last  clause  gives 
the  fearful  and  mysterious  exceptions.  The  blasphemy  of  the  Spirit, 
i.  e.  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  more  explicitly  stated  in  the  next  verse. 
The  solemn  repetition  or  inversion  of  the  formula  in  this  clause  gives  it 
the  impressive  tone  of  a  judicial  sentence. 

32.  And  whosoever  speaketh  a  word  against  the  Son  of 
man,  it  shall  he  forgiven  him  :  hut  whosoever  speaketh 
against  the  Holy  (jrhost,  it  shall  not  he  forgiven  him, 
neither  in  this  world,  neither  in  the  (world)  to  come. 

This  is  a  more  explicit  repetition  of  the  statement  in  v.  31.  The 
distinction  here  made  seems  entirely  unaccountable  if  made  between 
the  second  and  third 'persons  of  the  Godhead,  simply  as  such,  without 


341 


MATT  II E  W  12,  32.  33.  34. 

any  thing  to  qualify  or  specify  the  statement.  This  difficulty  disap¬ 
pears,  however,  on  observing  that  the  person  mentioned  in  the  first 
clause  is  not  the  eternal  Word  or  Son  of  God,  but  the  Son  of  Man, 
and  this,  as  we  have  seen  (above,  on  8,  20.  9,  6),  'describes  the  Saviour 
in  his  humiliation,  in  the  form  of  a  servant,  as  he  was  while  resident 
on  earth.  To  say  a  word  against  him  while  his  Godhead  was  thus 
veiled  and  as  it  were  in  abeyance,  was  a  very  different  offeuce  from 
speaking  with  contempt  and  malice  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  his  clearest 
manifestations,  especially  those  furnished  by  the  words  and  works  of 
Christ  himself.  The  antithesis  is  then  between  contemptuous  dis¬ 
paragement  of  Christ  as  he  appeared  in  his  humiliation,  and  the  same 
treatment  of  him  when  his  character  and  mission  were  attested  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.  TMs  world  and  the  world  to  come  are  common  phrases 
Muth  the  Jews  to  denote  the  whole  of  existence  or  duration,  as  divided 
into  two  great  parts  or  periods,  the  present  and  the  future.  They  are 
,here  combined  to  produce  an  absolute  negation  and  convey  the  idea 
that  the  sin  described  shall  xevee  be  forgiven.  The  word  translated 
world  properly  denotes  duration,  sometimes  definite,  as  an  age,  a  life¬ 
time,  or  a  dispensation,  but  when  limited  by  nothing  in  the  context, 
indefinite  and  even  infinite  duration.  This  strongest  sense  would  be 
implied  here  even  if  these  words  were  not  expressed.  If  some  sins 
will  be  forgiven  and  some  not,  the  latter  must  be  co-extensive  with 
the  former ;  and  as  those  forgiven  are  forgiven  to  eternity,  those  un¬ 
forgiven  must  eternally  remain  so. 

33.  Either  make  the  tree  good,  and  his  fruit  good  ;  or 
else  make  the  tree  corrupt,  and  his  fruit  corrupt  :  for  the 
tree  is  known  hy  (his)  fruit. 

There  is  here  an  obvious  recurrence  to  the  principle  laid  down  by 
Christ  himself  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (see  above,  on  7,  16-20), 
and  there  applied  to  the  same  class  of  persons  whom  he  is  addressing 
here.  The  obvious  presumption  therefore  is  that  the  same  application 
is  intended,  and  that  the  verse  before  us  is  an  exhortation  to  bring 
their  lives  and  their  professions  into  harmony.  But  such  a  warning 
against  false  professions  and  appearances  would  seem  to  be  misplaced 
in  this  connection,  where  the  subject  of  discourse  is  open  blasphemy, 
and  after  so  terrible  a  warning  against  the  unpardonable  sin.  Some 
writers  therefore  understand  the  words  as  a  direct  continuation  of 
what  goes  before,  and  as  having  reference  to  their  false  estimate  of 
Christ  himself.  Either  admit  the  effect  to  be  bad  or  the  cause  to  be 
good.  If  the  works  which  I  perform  are  good  works,  how  can  they 
spring  from  collusion  with  the  Evil  One  ?  The  sense  thus  put  upon 
the  verb  to  malce  is  supposed  to  bo  justified  by  John’s  use  of  it  in  sev¬ 
eral  places.  (See  John  8,  53.  10,  33.  19,  7.  1  John  1,  10.  5,  10.) 

34.  0  generation  of  vipers,  liow  can  ye,  being  evil, 
speak  good  things  ?  for  out  of  the  abundance  of  the  heart 
the  mouth  speaketh. 


342 


MATTHEW  12,34-37. 

35.  A  good  man  out  of  the  good  treasure  of  the  heart 
hriiigeth  forth  good  things  :  and  an  evil  man  out  of  the 
evil  treasure  hringeth  forth  evil  things. 

Having  thus  rebuked  their  slanderous  and  blasphemous  sugges¬ 
tions,  he  now,  by  a  sudden  apostrophe,  declares  them  to  be  necessary 
products  of  their  evil  nature.  Gen&ration  (brood)  of  m^ers  is  the 
phrase  applied  by  John  the  Baptist  to  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees 
who  came  forth  to  his  preaching,  and  is  here  used  to  designate  some  of 
the  same  persons  as  belonging  to  the  8eedj  of  the  eefpent  (Gen.  3,  15), 
with  whom  Christ  was  necessarily  in  conflict,  and  over  whom  he  must 
eventually  triumph.  Uoid  can  ye,  of  yourselves,  remaining  as  you  are. 
The  implied  impossibility  is  then  referred  (in  v.  35)  to  the  general  fact 
or  principle,  that  language  is  the  outflow,  or  as  it  is  beautifully  rep¬ 
resented  here,  the  overflow  of  inward  dispositions,  whether  good  or 
evil.  This  is  then  amplified  and  formally  affirmed  of  either  class  (in  v. 
30).  Bring etli  fort f  literally,  casts  oif  expels,  as  if  by  an  involuntary 
movement.  Treasure  is  here  used  in  its  earlier  and  wider  sense  of  store, 
deposit,  without  reference  to  value,  so  that  it  is  applicable  both  to 
good  and  evil.  These  descriptions  are  of  course  not  to  be  understood 
exclusivel}^,  but  only  in  the  general  of  the  spontaneous  expression  of  the 
inward  dispositions  in  the  language,  when  unrestrained  by  fear  and  un¬ 
disguised  by  hypocritical  professions,  as  appears  to  have  been  the  case 
with  these  blasphemers. 

36.  But  I  say  unto  you,  That  every  idle  word  that 
men  shall  speak,  they  shall  give  account  thereof  in  the 
day  of  judgment. 

This  seems  to  be  an  answer  to  the  tacit  or  audible  objection,  that 
too  much  stress  was  thus  laid  upon  men’s  words  as  distinguished  from 
their  actions.  The  spirit  of  the  answer  is  that  language,  for  the  reason 
just  assigned,  is  an  important  criterion  of  character,  and  therefore  a 
necessary  element  of  judgment.  Idle,^  unemplo3md,  without  work,  is 
the  proper  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  (apyov)  as  applied  to  persons. 
(See  below,  on  20,  3.  6.)  As  here  applied  to  words,  some  understand 
it  as  a  strong  meiosis  or  litotes  like  unfruitful  in  Eph.  5,  11.  We 
have  then  a  simple  statement,  that  for  every  wicked  word  like  that 
which  they  had  just  uttered  against  Christ,  men  must  give  account  as 
well  as  for  their  overt  acts.  Most  readers  probably  understand  by  idle^ 
trifling,  frivolous  or  foolish.  A  third  interpretation  makes  it  still  mean 
trivial,  but  in  the  sense  of  unimportant.  Even  fol*  such  words  men  are 
held  responsible. 

37.  For  by  thy  words  thou  slialt  be  justified,  and  by 
tby  words  thou  slialt  be  condemned. 

Here,  as  in  vs.  35.  36,  what  had  been  previously  stated  is  reduced 


343 


M  A  T  T  11  E  Vv^  12,  37.  38.  39. 

to  the  form  of  a  general  proposition.  By  does  not  convey  the  exact 
meaning  of  the  Greek  preposition,  which  is  from  or  out  of,  as  the 
source  from  which  the  judgment  is  to  be  derived.  The  meaning  is  not 
that  the  words  of  men  are  to  be  taken  as  the  sole  criteria  of  their 
character,  to  the  exclusion  of  their  other  actions,  which  would  be  ab¬ 
surd  and  put  it  in  the  power  of  any  man  to  settle  his  own  destiny  by 
sheer  talking  or  profession.  The  meaning  is  the  same  as  in  v.  36, 
more  formally  propounded ;  namely,  that  the  words,  so  far  as  they  are 
real  exponents  of  something  inward,  will  be  taken  into  the  account  in 
making  up  an  estimate  of  each  man’s  character,  and  not  excluded  or 
ignored,  as  many  seem  to  imagine. 

38.  Then  certain  of  the  scribes  and  of  the  Pharisees 
answered,,  saying,  Master,  we  would  see  a  sign  from  thee. 

Though  the  word  then  by  itself  would  prove  nothing  as  to  chrono¬ 
logical  succession,  its  being  before  combined  with  cmsicered  makes  it 
altogether  probable  that  what  is  here  related  followed  immediately  the 
incidents  recorded  in  the  previous  context.  The  speakers  here  are  of 
the  same  class  that  blasphemed  him,  but  not  the  same  individuals 
(Luke  11,  16).  The  connection  seems  to  be  that  they  were  not  yet 
satisfied  respecting  the  expulsion  of  the  demons,  and  now  ask  a  sign 
from  heaven^  as  opposed  to  a  sign  from  hell  or  one  on  earth,  in  proof 
of  his  Messiahship,  before  they  would  acknowledge  his  pretensions. 
Their  addressing  him  as  Master,  i.  e.  Teacher,  may  be  either  hypocriti¬ 
cal,  intended  to  cajole  and  flatter,  or  ironical,  intended  to  insinuate 
their  doubts  of  his  commission  and  authority.  We  would  see,  to  a 
modern  English  reader,  conveys  very  imperfectly  the  force  of  the  orig¬ 
inal,  the  Greek  word  (^eXogev),  according  to  the  lexicons,  expressing 
not  mere  willingness  or  even  inclination,  but  a  decided  choice  and  act 
of  will,  as  if  they  had  said,  ‘  we  choose  (or  wo  demand)  to  see  a  sign 
from  heaven,  in  addition  to  these  miracles  on  earth  and  possibly  from 
hell.’ 

39.  But  he  answered  and  said  unto  them,  An  evil  and 
adulterous  generation  seeketh  after  a  sign  ;  and  there 
shall  no  sign  be  given  to  it,  but  the  sign  of  the  prophet 
J onas  : 

The  answer,  though  addressed  to  them,  is  in  the  third  person,  as 
intended  for  a  greater  number,  and  because  this  form  of  speech  has 
something  disrespectful  and  contemptuous.  lie  calls  them  a  genera¬ 
tion,  as  representing  the  great  mass  of  the  contemporary  Jews.  To  the 
general  term  evil  (i.  e.  wicked),  he  adds  the  specific  one  adulterous, 
literally,  adultress,  and  in  apposition  with  the  feminine  noun  genera¬ 
tion.  This  is  not  to  be  literally  understood  in  reference  to  the  preva¬ 
lence  of  this  particular  iniquity,  to  which  there  is  no  allusion  in  the 
context,  or  any  statement  elsewhere  in  the  Gospels.  It  is  the  well- 


344 


MATTHEW  12,39.40. 

known  figure  running  through  the  Old  Testament  of  a  conjugal  relation 
betw'een  God  and  the  chosen  people.  Idolatry  is  often  represented  as  a 
breach  of  this  relation  or  as  spiritual  adultery.  When  idolatry  ceased 
among  the  Jews,  the  same  description  would  be  naturally  applied  to 
other  forms  of  unfaithfulness  by  which  it  was  succeeded.  There  is  no 
need  of  assuming  (with  Theophylact)  that  demons  take  the  place  of 
idols  in  this  later  usage.  Seeketh  after ^  an  emphatic  compound  (eVt- 
^Tyrei),  used  above  (6,  32)  to  express  the  inordinate  craving  of  the 
heathen  after  temporal  advantages  and  comforts.  A  sign  shall  not 
he  given  them^  i.  e.  such  as  they  demand,  to  wit,  a  miracle  of  the  kind 
prescribed  or  ordered  by  themselves,  as  the  only  proof  of  Ins  Messiali- 
ship  by  which  they  would  consent  to  be  convinced.  This  refusal  was 
justified,  not  only  by  the  sovereign  will  of  him  who  uttered  it,  but  by  the 
insolence  of  the  demand  itself,  by  the  blasphemous  aspersion  which  it 
presupposed,  and  by  the  general  principle,  continually  recognized  in 
the  divine  administration,  that  no  one  has  a  right  to  superfluous  evi¬ 
dence  of  what  has  been  sufficiently  evinced  already.  (See  below,  on  21, 
23-27,  and  compare  Luke  16,  31.)  The  last  clause  is  a  sort  of  solemn 
irony  equivalent  to  saying,  ‘  unless  they  will  accept  the  case  of  J onah 
as  such  a  sign.’  It  is  not  meant  that  it  was  such  a  sign  as  they  de¬ 
manded,  but  merely  adds  point  to  the  previous  refusal. 

I 

40.  For  as  Jonas  was  tliree  days  and  three  nights  in 
the  whale's  belly  :  so  shall  the  Son  of  man  be  three  days 
and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth. 

Instead  of  giving  them  a  sign  from  heaven,  such  as  they  demanded, 
he  refers  them  to  the  sign  of  his  owm  burial  and  resurrection,  which  he 
connects  in  an  enigmatical  manner  with  a  well-known  incident  of  Old 
Testament  history,  parti}'',  no  doubt,  for  the  sake  of  the  comparison 
that  follows  in  the  next  verse.  There  are  then  two  reasons  for  select¬ 
ing  this  particular  occurrence,  first,  the  actual  coincidence  of  outward 
circumstances,  and  secondly,  the  opposite  effects  in  the  two  cases. 
The  external  resemblance  was  the  burial  for  three  days  both  of  Jonas 
(the  Greek  form  of  Jonah')  and  of  Jesus.  Whale  is  gratuitously  used 
in  all  the  English  versions  for  a  Greek  word  meaning  any  great  fish  or 
sea-monster ;  so  that  the  physiological  objection,  founded  on  the  struc¬ 
ture  of  the  whale,  is  swept  away.  Three  days  and  three  nights  are  to 
be  computed  in  the  Jewish  manner,  which  applies  that  formula  to  one 
whole  day  with  any  part  however  small  of  two  others.  This  is  notan 
invention  of  Christian  apologists,  but  laid  down  as  a  rule  in  the  Tal¬ 
mud  :  one  hour  more  is  reckoned  as  a  day,  one  day  more  as  a  year. 
The  existence  of  the  usage  may  be  seen  by  comparing  the  terms  “  after 
three  days  ”  and  “  until  the  third  day  ”  in  27,  63.  64  below.  (See 
also  Esther  4,  16.  5,  1).  The  heart  of  the  earth  is  not  hades  (see 
above,  on  11,  23),  but  the  grave,  so  called  in  allusion  to  the  words  of 
Jonah  (2,  2.  3.  where  midst  is  literally  rendered  in  the  margin,  heart). 


MATTHEW  12,41.42.43. 


345 


41.  The  men  of  Nineveh  shall  rise  in  the  judgment 
with  this  generation,  and  shall  condemn  it  :  because  they 
repented  at  the  preaching  of  Jonas  ;  and,  behold,  a  great¬ 
er  than  J onas  (is)  here. 

Besides  the  outward  similarity  just  mentioned,  there  was  a  moral 
antithesis  or  contrast  in  the  cases,  which  our  Lord  makes  use  of,  to 
enhance  the  condemnation  of  the  unbelieving  Jews.  The  heathen  to 
whom  Jonah  preached  repented  and  were  spared:  the  Jews  to  whom 
Christ  preached  were  impenitent  and  perished.  This  of  course  has 
reference  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  whom  he  addressed.  The  form 
of  expression  is  similar  to  that  in  10,  15.  11,  22.  24.  Bise  in  judg¬ 
ment  does  not  mean  rise  from  the  dead  at  the  day  of  judgment,  but 
stand  at  the  bar  to  be  tried.  With^  not  against,  but  at  the  same  time, 
or  in  company.  Condemn  tliem^  not  in  words  but  by  example.  The 
last  clause  is  similar  in  form  and  argumentative  force  to  that  of  v.  6. 

42.  The  queen  of  the  south  shall  rise  up  in  the  judg¬ 
ment  with  this  generation,  and  shall  condemn  it :  for  she 
came  from  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  to  hear  the 
wisdom  of  Solomon  ;  and,  behold,  a  greater  than  Solomon 
(is)  here. 

As  the  mention  of  Jonah  suggested  the  repentance  of  the  Nine- 
vites,  in  contrast  with  the  unbelief  of  Christ’s  contemporaries,  so  the 
mention  of  the  Ninevites  suggests  another  case,  not  of  repentance  but 
of  admiration  for  the  wisdom  of  a  mere  man,  as  contrasted  with  the 
scorn  of  Scribes  and  Pharisees  for  that  of  a  divine  teacher.  The  Queen 
of  the  Souths  called  in  the  Old  Testament  the  Queen  of  Sheba  (1  Kings 
10,  1),  supposed  to  be  the  southern  part  of  the  Arabian  peninsula. 
From  the  ends  of  the  earthy  a  hyperbole,  found  also  in  the  best  Greek 
writers,  for  a  great  distance.  It  may  here  be  intended  to  suggest  a 
difference  of  race  and  of  religion. 

43.  When  the  unclean  spirit  is  gone  out  of  a  man,  he 
walketh  through  dry  places,  seeking  rest,  and  findeth 
none. 

As  the  preceding  threatcnings  and  denunciations  had  respect  to  the 
contemporary  Jews,  our  Lord  liere  gives  a  fearful  view  of  their  condi¬ 
tion  as  compared  with  former  generations.  The  similitude  which  he 
uses  for  this  purpose  is  derived  from  demoniacal  possessions,  and  is  not 
to  be  regarded  as  a  fiction  but  a  fact,  of  real  though  perhaps  of  pare 
occurrence.  The  case  described  is  that  of  a  relapse  into  the  demonized 
condition  with  its  fearful  aggravations  and  its  hopeless  issue.  Is  g^me 
out,  or  more  simply,  goes  out,  either  by  a  voluntary  act  or  by  coercive 
dispossession,  a  question  of  no  moment  in  relation  to  what  follows. 


MATTHEW  12,43.44.45. 


346 

t 

Walketlh^  a  more  specific  term  than  the  original  which  means  no  more 
than  goes^  or  passes  through.  Dry-,  unwatered,  without  water,  desert. 
It  appears  from  the  Apocrypha  (Tobit  8.  3.  Baruch  4,  35)  that  such 
places  were  regarded  by  the  later  Jews  as  the  abode  or  the  resort  of 
demons,  and  the  same  thing  is  said  of  ruined  Babylon  in  Rev.  18,  2. 
We  have  neither  right  nor  reason  to  regard  this  as  a  mere  superstition 
or  poetical  embellishment.  Our  Saviour’s  language,  in  the  verse  be¬ 
fore  us,  warrants  the  belief  that  there  is  some  mysterious  fact  at  the 
foundation  of  all  such  allusions.  Rest.^  not,  as  some  suppose,  another 
victim,  or  the  pleasure  of  a  new  possession,  but  more  generally,  satis¬ 
faction  and  repose.  The  state  described  is  that  of  restless  discontent 
with  present  circumstances,  urging  to  a  prompt  return  to  what  pre¬ 
ceded,  as  expressed  dramatically  in  the  next  verse. 


44.  Then  he  saith,  I  will  return  into  my  house  from 
whence  I  came  out  ;  and  when  he  is  come,  he  tindeth 
(it)  empty,  swept,  and  garnished. 

My  house^  home,  previous  abode,  to  wit,  the  body  and  the  soul  of 
the  demoniac.  The  description  in  the  last  clause  has  been  variously 
understood.  Some  suppose  the  victim  to  be  represented  as  entirely 
free  from  the  Satanic  influence,  and  in  a  state  of  spiritual  health  and 
purity ;  while  others  hold  the  opposite  opinion,  that  he  is  described  as 
ready  for  the  re-possession;  empty.,  and  sieept  clean,  not  of  demoniacal 
conditions,  but  of  all  that  would  prevent  them ;  garnished,  set  in  order 
or  arranged,  not  for  some  higher  end,  but  for  the  use  of  the  returning 
demon.  The  former  supposition  makes  the  contrast  more  striking  and 
the  issue  more  terrific,  by  describing  the  reconquest  as  occurring  just 
when  every  thing  appeared  to  promise  permanent  deliverance.  But  the 
other  agrees  better  with  the  application  to  the  Jews,  whose  spirit¬ 
ual  state  before  the  great  catastrophe  could  not  be  represented  even 
comparatively  as  a  pure  one,  unless  we  assume  a  specific  reference  to 
their  freedom  from  idolatry,  of  which  we  may  have  more  to  say  below. 


45.  Then  goetli  he,  and  taketh  with  himself  seven 
other  spirits  more  wicked  than  himself,  and  they  enter  in 
and  dwell  there  :  and  the  last  (state)  of  that  man  is 
worse  than  the  first.  Even  so  shall  it  be  also  unto  this 
wicked  generation. 

Then,  when  he  sees  the  victim  thus  prepared  for  his  reception. 
He  goeth  away  in  search  of  his  companions.  Seven,  either  as  a  defi¬ 
nite  number  in  some  real  case  to  which  our  Lord  alludes,  or  as  a  pro¬ 
verbial  form  for  an  indefinite  plurality,  as  in  18,  21.  22  below.  Worse, 
more  wicked,  more  of  evil  spirits,  not  collectively  but  severally.  En¬ 
ter  in,  a  term  used  elsewhere  to  describe  demoniacal  possession.  (See 


347 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  12,  45.  46. 

above  on  8,  31.  32,  and  compare  Mark  5,  12.  9,  25).  Dwells  a  Greek 
verb  meaning  properly  to  settle,  take  up  one’s  abode,  whether  for  a 
time  or  permanently,  which  last  is  here  suggested  by  the  context. 
Last  state^  literally,  last  (things),  circumstances,  or  conditions.  This 
fearful  picture,  drawn  perhaps  from  some  notorious  or  well-remember¬ 
ed  case  of  repossession,  is  expressly  applied,  in  the  last  clause,  to  the 
contemporary  race  of  Jews.  It  seems  to  be  agreed  on  all  hands  that 
their  last  state  was  that  following  the  national  rejection  of  Messiah, 
and  immediately  preceding  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  dissolu¬ 
tion  of  the  Hebrew  state,  and  the  dispersion  which  has  not  yet  ceased. 
We  learn  from  their  own  historian  that  the  people,  and  especially  their 
leaders,  were  at  that  time  filled  with  a  fanatical  insanity,  not  unlike 
that  produced  by  demoniacal  possession.  The  only  difficulty  is  in  as¬ 
certaining  what  is  represented  by  the  interval  of  dispossession,  or  in 
other  words,  when  the  unclean  spirit  can  be  said  to  have  gone  out  of 
them.  There  are  two  ways  of  answering  this  question,  one  of  which 
assumes  a  reference  to  some  specific  period  in  the  history  of  Israel,  and 
most  probably  to  that  which  succeeded  the  Babylonish  exile,  one  of 
the  most  singular  effects  of  which  was  to  extinguish  idolatry  among 
the  people,  who  before  were  continually  lapsing  into  it.  The  obvious 
objection  to  this  explanation  is  that  there  was  no  return  to  idolatrous 
corruption,  even  in  the  last  state  of  the  Jewish  nation,  which  in  that 
respect  was  better  and  not  icorse  than  the  first.  To  this  it  may  be 
answered,  not  without  some  plausibility,  that  idolatry  was  not  itself 
the  demon  that  went  out  and  afterwards  returned,  but  only  the  specific 
temporary  form  of  the  possession,  which  might  cease  forever  though 
the  unclean  spirit  of  malignant  disobedience  and  unfaithfulness  to  God 
returned  and  showed  itself  in  new  and  more  atrocious  forms  of  horri¬ 
ble  corruption,  such  as  worldliness,  hypocrisy,  cupidity,  blindness  to 
the  truth,  and  rejection  of  their  own  Messiah.  It  might  still  be  ob¬ 
jected  that  the  Jews  would  then  be  represented  as  entirely  free  from 
all  corruption  after  the  captivity  ;  but  this,  though  not  absolutely  true, 
was  so  far  so  as  to  justify  the  parabolical  description,  the  design  of 
which  was  simply  to  exhibit  two  successive  changes,  one  for  the  better 
and  the  other  for  the  worse.  This  is  the  ground  assumed  in  the  other 
explanation,  which  supposes  what  is  here  described  to  be  no  specific 
period  in  the  history  of  Israel,  but  simply  a  process  of  deterioration, 
with  occasional  vicissitudes  and  fluctuations,  but  resulting  in  a  state 
far  worse  than  any  that  had  gone  before  it.  This  is  certainly  the  gen¬ 
eral  impression  made  by  the  particular  case  stated,  and  it  certainly  ap¬ 
plies  with  terrible  exactness  to  the  downward  progress  of  the  Jews, 
with  partial  interruptions,  till  the  time  of  the  great  national  catastro¬ 
phe,  the  last  generation  being  of  course  most  severely  punished,  not 
only  for  their  fathers’s  sins  but  for  their  own.  (See  below,  on  23,  35). 

>  46.  While  he  yet  talked  to  the  people,  behold,  (his) 
mother  and  his  brethren  stood  without,  desiring  to  speak 
with  him. 


348 


MATTHEW  12,46.47.48. 

Having  been  led  by  a  natural  association  under  divine  guidance  to 
give  some  account  of  the  effect  produced  by  Christ’s  increasing  popu¬ 
larity  upon  his  most  malignant  enemies,  the  ■vvTiter  now  returns  to  the 
effect  upon  his  friends,  especially  those  nearest  to  him.  This  view  of 
the  connection  throws  some  light  upon  the  conduct  of  his  mother  and 
his  brethren,  in  disturbing  him  while  publicly  engaged  in  teaching. 
That  they  would  venture  to  do  so  without  a  reason,  or  on  ordinary  bu¬ 
siness,  or  from  personal  affection,  or  from  pride  in  their  connection  with 
him,  although  not  impossible,  is  far  less  probable  than  that  they  were 
actuated  by  an  anxious  care  for  his  own  safety,  and  called  for  him  in 
order  to  arrest  what  they  regarded  as  a  wild  and  dangerous  excite¬ 
ment,  both  on  his  part  and  on  that  of  the  assembled  masses.  (Com¬ 
pare  Mark  3,  21.)  It  may  be  difficult  for  us,  with  our  habitual  asso¬ 
ciations,  to  appreciate  the  motives  of  these  anxious  friends  ;  but  at  the 
Juncture  here  described,  nothing  could  be  more  natural  and  pardonable 
than  precisely  such  solicitude,  which  is  perfectly  compatible  with  true 
faith  and  affection,  but  imperfect  views  both  of  his  person  and  his  mis¬ 
sion.  The  principal  actor  in  this  scene  is  his  mother,  the  brothers 
merely  following  or  attending  her,  but  joining  in  her  message  and  re¬ 
quest.  It  has  been  a  subject  of  dispute  for  ages,  whether  these  broth¬ 
ers  of  our  Lord  were  sons  of  Joseph  and  INIary,  or  of  Joseph  by  a  for¬ 
mer  wife,  or  nephews  of  either,  all  of  which  hypotheses  have  been 
maintained  by  high  authorities.  Some  of  the  questions  in  relation  to 
this  topic  wdll  recur  below  (on  13,  55),  and  some  have  been  considered 
in  the  exposition  of  1,  25.  All  that  is  necessary  here  is  to  observe  that 
they  were  certainly  his  near  relations,  and  either  by  birth  or  by  adop¬ 
tion  members  of  his  mother’s  family,  so  that  they  constantly  attended 
her  and  acted  with  her  upon  this  occasion.  Without,  eMhev  outside  of 
the  house,  or  more  probably  bejmnd  the  circle  of  his  hearers  in  the 
open  air. 


47.  Then  one  said  unto  him,  Behold,  thy  mother  and 
thy  brethren  stand  without,  desiring  to  speak  with  thee. 

As  there  was  a  crowd  about  him  (Mark  3,  32),  they  probaldy  said 
it  one  to  another  till  the  nearest  finally  reported  it  to  Jesus.  There  is 
no  ground,  therefore,  for  the  singular  opinion,  that  this  person  wished 
to  interrupt  our  Lord’s  discourse  as  too  alarming,  by  directing  his  at¬ 
tention  to  his  friends  who  were  present  and  inquiring  for  him. 


48.  But  he  answered  arid  said  unto  him  that  told  him, 
Who  is  my  mother  ?  and  who  are  my  brethren  ? 

Our  Lord  takes  occasion  from  this  incident  to  teach  them  that  his 
relative  position  in  society  was  wholly  different  from  that  of  others, 
his  domestic  ties,  though  real,  being  as  nothing  in  comparison  with 
those  which  bound  him  to  his  spiritual  household.  This  is  the  mean- 


MATTHEW  12,48.49.50. 


349 


ing  of  the  question  here  recorded.  ^  Do  you  think  that  my  condition 
is  the  same  as  yours,  and  that  the  wishes  of  my  mother  and  my  broth¬ 
ers  are  as  binding  upon  me  as  those  of  your  own  households  are  and 
ought  to  be  on  you  ?  ’  There  is  no  doubt  an  implied  negation  of  the 
proposition  thus  suggested,  as  if  he  had  said,  ‘  You  are  mistaken  in 
supposing  that  my  family  relations  are  the  same  as  yours,  or  that  my 
mother  and  brothers  are  what  you  express  by  those  endearing  names.’ 
The  contemptuous  meaning  put  by  some  upon  the  words,  as  if  he  had 
intended  to  say,  What  are  they  to  me  ?  or  what  care  I  for  them  ?  is 
wholly  foreign  from  the  text  and  context. 

49.  And  lie  stretched  forth  his  hand  towards  his  dis¬ 
ciples,  and  said,  Behold  iny  mother  and  my  brethren  ! 

Mark  and  Matthew  have  preserved  to  us  each  a  look  or  gesture  of 
our  Lord  on  this  occasion.  He  lool:ed  round  about  on  them.wliicli  sat 
about  Mm  (Mark  3,  33),  no  doubt  with  affectionate  and  tender  rec¬ 
ognition,  and  he  stretched  forth  his  hand  toward  his  disciples,  as  if  to 
point  them  out  to  others.  See,  behold,  (these  are)  my  mother  and  my 
brothers,  i.  e.  my  family  and  nearest  kindred.  I  am  not  bound,  as  you 
are,  to  a  single  household,  but  embrace  as  equally  allied  and  dear  to 
me,  this  vast  assembly. 

50.  For  whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven,  the  same  is  my  brother,  and  sister, 
and  mother. 

Lest  the  comprehensive  statement  which  immediately  precedes 
should  lead  any  to  imagine  that  mere  outward  attendance  on  his  teach¬ 
ing  would  entitle  them  to  this  distinction,  he  emphatically  adds,  that 
it  belonged  to  none  but  those  who  acted  out  as  well  as  listened  to  this 
doctrine.  It  was  only  he  who  did  the  will  of  God,  as  Christ  announced 
it,  that  could  claim  the  honour  of  this  near  relationship.  But  where 
this  condition  was  complied  with,  even  the  poorest  and  most  ignorant, 
and  in  themselves  the  most  unworthy  of  his  hearers,  were  as  truly 
members  of  his  household,  and  as  affectionately  cherished  by  him,  as 
his  highly  favoured  mother,  who  was  blessed  among  women  (Luke  1, 
28),  or  his  brothers  and  his  sisters  according  to  the  flesh.  This  de¬ 
lightful  assurance,  far  from  abjuring  his  natural  relations,  onl}?'  makes 
them  a  standard  of  comparison  for  others.  Far  fi-om  saying  that  he 
does  not  love  his  mother  and  his  brethren,  he  declares  that  he  has 
equal  love  for  all  who  do  the  will  of  God.  Such  a  profession  from  a 
mere  man  might  be  justly  understood  as  implying  a  deficiency  of  natural 
affection,  since  so  wide  a  diffusion  of  the  tenderest  attachments  must 
detract  from  their  intensity  within  a  narrow  sphere.  Of  Christ  alone 
can  it  be  literally  true,  that  while  he  loved  those  nearest  to  him  with 
a  love  beyond  all  liuman  experience  or  capacity,  and  with  precisely  the 


350 


MATTHEW  13. 


affection  due  to  each  beloved  object,  he  embraced  with  equal  tenderness 
and  warmth  the  thousands  who  composed  his  spiritual  household,  and 
will  continue  so  to  do  forever.  The  implied  reproof  of  his  friends’  in¬ 
terference  with  his  sacred  functions,  was  intended  only  for  themselves. 
What  he  said  to  the  multitude,  instead  of  disparaging  his  natural  rela¬ 
tions,  magnified  and  honoured  them  by  making  them  the  measure  of 
his  spiritual  friendships ;  and  even  if  he  meant  to  say  that  those  who 
did  the  will  of  God  were  the  only  relatives  whom  he  acknowledged,  he 
must  still  have  given  a  high  place  among  them  to  his  mother,  notwith¬ 
standing  her  anxieties  on  his  behalf,  and  to  his  brothers  also,  if  believ¬ 
ers.  If  'brothers  be  here  taken  in  the  wide  sense  of  near  relatives,  or 
even  in  the  narrower  one  of  cousins,  it  is  easy  to  imagine  that  while 
some  belonging  to  this  class  were  unbelievers  (see  John  7,  5),  there 
were  others  at  this  time  enrolled  among  his  disciples,  and  some  already 
known  as  his  apostles.  (See  above,  on  1,  25,  and  below,  on  13,  55.) 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


This  division  of  the  narrative  is  chiefly  occupied  with  samples  of  our 
Lord’s  parabolic  mode  of  teaching,  of  which  seven  are  here  brought 
together,  in  an  order  at  once  topical  and  chronological.  In  addition 
to  the  parables  themselves,  we  have  his  own  interpretation  of  two 
of  them,  not  only  enabling  us  to  understand  them  in  particular  but 
also  throwing  light  upon  the  true  method  of  interpreting  parables 
in  general.  The  first  and  longest,  that  of  the  sower,  shows  the  va¬ 
rious  receptions  which  the  word  or  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  would 
meet  with  in  the  hearts  of  men  (1-9).  This  is  followed  by  a  state¬ 
ment  of  his  reason  for  employing  this  mode  of  instruction  (10-17), 
and  a  formal  explanation  of  the  parable  just  uttered  (18-23).  The 
second  parable  is  that  of  the  tares,  showing  the  mixed  condition  of  the 
visible  church,  and  the  proper  mode  of  dealing  with  it  (24-30).  This 
is  followed  by  a  double  parable  (the  mustard-seed  and  leaven),  show¬ 
ing,  as  usually  understood,  the  expansive  nature  of  the  true  religion 
(31-35).  Then  comes  his  private  explanation  of  the  tares  to  his  disciples, 
at  their  own  request  (36-43).  To  these  Matthew  adds  the  parables  of 
the  hidden  treasure  and  the  pearl  of  great  price,  showing  how  the  gos¬ 
pel  should  be  valued  and  secured  "(44-46),  and  concludes  the  series 
with  that  of  the  net,  of  kindred  import  with  the  tares,  but  not  without 
peculiar  features  of  its  own  (47-50),  and  a  brief  conversation  as  to 
parables  in  general  (51-53).  The  remainder  of  the  chapter  might 
have  been  connected  with  the  next,  as  it  has  no  relation  to  the  Sa¬ 
viour’s  parables,  but  records  his  rejection  by  his  old  neighbours  and 
acquaintances  at  Nazareth  (54-58). 


351 


MATTHEW  13,  1.  2.  3. 

1.  The  same  day  went  Jesus  out  of  the  house,  and 
sat  by  the  sea  side. 

2.  And  great  multitudes  were  gathered  together  unto 
him,  so  that  he  went  into  a  ship,  and  sat ;  and  the  whole 
multitude  stood  on  the  shore. 

Like  Luke  (8,  4)  and  (IMark  4,  1),  Matthew  records,  as  a  sort 
of  epoch  or  important  juncture  in  his  history,  the  beginning  of 
our  Saviour’s  parabolical  instructions,  as  a  part  of  the  preparatory 
process  by  which  he  contributed  to  the  reorganization  of  the 
Church,  although  he  did  not  actually  make  the  change  during 
his  personal  presence  upon  earth,  because,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was 
to  rest  upon  his  death  and  resurrection  as  its  corner-stone.  The 
other  part  of  his  preparatory  work  consisted  in  the  choice  and  edu¬ 
cation  of  the  men  by  whom  the  change  was  to  be  afterwards  effected. 
(See  above,  on  4,  18.  9,  9. 10.)  He  had  already  taught  the  people 
publicly  with  great  effect,  but  now  began  to  teach  them  in  a  peculiar 
manner,  with  a  special  purpose  to  elucidate  the  nature  of  his  kingdom, 
for  the  benefit  of  those  who  were  to  be  his  subjects,  but  without  a  too 
explicit  and  precipitate  disclosure  of  his  claim  to  the  Messiahship.  By 
the  seaside,  or  along  the  sea^  i.  e.  the  lake  of  Tiberias  or  Galilee  (see 
above,  on  4,  15),  not  only  near  it,  but  upon  the  very  shore.  Multitudes,, 
or  crowds,,  the  Greek  work  indicating  not  mere  numbers,  but  promiscuous 
assemblages  (see  above,  on  4,  25).  The  situation  is  like  that  described 
in  Mark  3,  9,  where  we  read  that  he  directed  a  small  vessel  to  be  ready, 
if  the  crowd  should  be  so  great  as  to  j^revcnt  his  standing  on  the  shore 
with  safety  or  convenience.  Here  we  find  him  actually  entering  into 
(or  emlarhing  in)  the  loat,,  no  doubt  the  one  already  mentioned  as  in 
readiness,  and  sitting  there,  i.  e.  upon  the  surface  of  the  lake,  while  his 
vast  audience  was  on  the  shore  or  beach.  The  scene  thus  presented 
must  have  been  highly  impressive  to  the  eye,  and  still  affords  a  striking 
subject  for  the  pencil. 

3.  And  he  spake  many  things  unto  them  in  parables, 
saying.  Behold,  a  sower  went  forth  to  sow  : 

Many  things,,  of  which  only  samples  are  preserved,  even  by  Mat¬ 
thew,  showing  that  the  writer’s  aim  was  not  to  furnish  an  exhaustive 
history,  but  to  illustrate  by  examples  the  ministry  of  Christ.  In 
parables,,  i.  e.  in  the  form  and  in  the  use  of  them.  Parable  is  a  slight 
modification  of  a  Greek  noun,  the  verbal  root  of  which  has  two  prin¬ 
cipal  meanings,  to  propound  (throw  out  or  put  forth),  and  compare 
(throw  together  or  lay  side  by  side).  The  sense  of  the  noun  derived 
from  the  former  usage,  that  of  any  thing  propounded,  is  too  vague  to 
be  distinctive,  comprehending  as  it  does  all  kinds  of  instruction,  which, 
from  its  very  nature,  must  fee  put  forth  or  imparted  from  one  mind  to 
another.  The  more  specific  sense  of  comparison,  resemblance,  is  not 


352 


MATTHEW  13,3. 


only  sanctioned  by  the  usage  of  the  best  Greek  writers  (such  as  Pla^, 
Aristotle,  and  Isocrates),  but  recommended,  not  to  say  required  by  the 
employment  of  a  corresponding  Hebrew  word  from  to  re¬ 

semble)  in  precisely  the  same  way.  In  its  widest  sense,  a  parable  is 
any  illustration  from  analogy,  including  the  simile  and  metaphor  as 
rhetorical  figures,  the  allegory,  apologue,  fable,  and  some  forms  oi  pio- 
verbial  expression.  In  a  more  restricted  sense,  the  word  denotes  an 
illustration  of  moral  or  religious  truth  derived  from  the  analogy  ot 
human  experience.  In  this  respect  it  difibrs  from  the  fable,  which  ac¬ 
complishes  the  same  end  by  employing  the  supposed  acts  of  mferioi 
animals,  or  even  those  ascribed  to  inanimate  objects,  to  illustrate  human 
character  and  conduct.  The  only  fables  found  in  Scripture,  those  of 
Jotham  (Judg.  9,  8-15)  and  Joash  (2  Kings  14, 9),  are  given  on  huinan, 
not  divine  authority.  The  parable,  in  its  more  restricted  sense,  as  just 
explained,  is  not  necessarily  narrative  in  form,  much  less  fictitious, 
although  this  is  commonly  assumed  in  modern  definitions  of  the  term. 
There  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  all  the  parables  of  Christ  are 
founded  in  fact,  if  not  entirely  composed  of  real  incidents.  They  are 
all  drawn  from  familiar  forms  of  human  experience,  and  with  one  ex¬ 
ception  from  the  present  life.  This  creates  a  strong  presumption  that 
the  facts  are  true,  unless  there  be  some  positive  reason  for  supposing 
them  fictitious.  Now  the  necessity  of  fiction  to  illustrate  moral  truth 
arises,  not  from  the  deficiency  of  real  facts  adapted  to  the  purpose,  but 
from  the  writer’s  limited  acquaintance  with  them,  and  his  consequent 
incapacity  to  frame  the  necessary  combinations,  without  calling  in  the 
aid  of  his  imagination.  But  no  such  necessity  can  exist  in  the  case  of 
an  inspired,  much  less  of  an  omniscient  teacher.  To  resort  to  fiction, 
therefore,  even  admitting  its  lawfulness  on  moral  grounds,  when  real 
life  affords  in  such  abundance  the  required  analogies,  would  be  a  gra¬ 
tuitous  preference,  if  not  of  the  false  to  the  true,  at  least  of  the  imag¬ 
inary  to  the  real,  which  seems  unworthy  of  our  Lord,  or  which,  to 
say  the  least,  we  have  no  right  to  assume  without  necessity.  In  ex¬ 
pounding  the  parables,  interpreters  have  gone  to  very  opposite  ex¬ 
tremes,  but  most  to  that  of  making  every  thing  significant,  or  giving  a 
specific  sense  to  everj^  minute  point  of  the  analogy  presented.  This 
error  is  happily  exposed  by  Augustine,  when  he  says,  that  the  whole 
plough  is  needed  in  the  act  of  ploughing,  though  the  ploughshare  alone 
makes  the  furrow,  and  the  whole  frame  of  an  instrument  is  useful, 
though  the  strings  alone  produce  the  music.  The  other  extreme,  that 
of  overlooking  or  denying  the  significance  of  some  things  really 
significant,  is  much  less  common  than  the  first,  and  for  the  most  part 
found  in  writers  of  severer  taste  and  judgment.  The  true  mean  is 
difiicult  but  not  impossible  to  find,  upon  the  principle  now  commonly 
assumed  as  true,  at  least  in  theoiy,  that  the  main  analogy  intended, 
like  the  centre  of  a  circle,  must  determine  the  position  of  all  points  in 
the  circumference.  It  may  also  be  observed,  that  as  the  same  illustra¬ 
tion  may  legitimately  mean  more  to  one  man  than  to  another,  in  pro¬ 
portion  to  the  strength  of  their  imaginative  faculties,  it  is  highly  im¬ 
portant  that,  in  attempting  to  determine  the  essential  meaning  of  our 


353 


MATTHEW  13,3.4. 

Saviour’s  parables,  we  should  not  confound  what  they  may  possibly  be 
made  to  mean,  with  what  they  must  mean  to  attain  their  purpose.  In 
addition  to  these  principles,  arising  from  the  nature  of  the  parable  itself, 
we  have  the  unspeakable  advantage  of  our  Saviour’s  own  example  as  a 
self-interpreter.  Behold !  lo  !  see  !  both  in  Hebrew  and  Hellenistic 
usage,  introduces  something  unexpected  and  surprising.  Some  take  it 
even  in  its  primary  and  strict  sense,  look !  see  there !  implying  that 
the  object  indicated  was  in  sight  or  actually  visible  ;  in  other  words, 
that  Christ  was  led  to  use  this  illustration  by  the  casual  appearance 
of  a  sower  in  a  neighbouring  field ;  and  this  is  often  represented  as  the 
usual  occasion  of  his  parabolic  teachings.  It  seems,  however,  to  re-” 
gard  them  as  too  purely  accidental,  and  too  little  the  result  of  a  deliber¬ 
ate  predetermination,  such  as  we  cannot  but  assume  in  the  practice 
of  a  divine  teacher.  A  safer  form  of  the  same  proposition  is  the  one 
already  stated  that  our  Saviour’s  parables,  though  not  invariably  sug¬ 
gested  by  immediate  sights  or  passing  scenes,  are  all  derived  from  the 
analogy  of  human  experience,  and  in  most  instances  of  common  life. 
Thus  three  here  given  by  Matthew  are  designed  not  only  to  exhibit 
different  aspects  of  the  same  great  subject,  the  Messiah’s  kingdom,  but 
to  exhibit  them  by  means  of  images  derived  from  one  mode  of  life  or 
occupation,  that  of  husbandry,  with  which  his  auditors  were  all  fami¬ 
liar,  and  in  which,  most  probably,  the  greater  part  of  them  were  con¬ 
stantly  engaged.  But  besides  these  objections  to  the  general  supposi¬ 
tion  that  our  Saviour’s  parables  were  all  suggested  casually,  such  an 
assumption  is  forbidden  in  the  case  before  us  by  the  form  of  expression 
used  by  all  the  evangelists  with  striking  uniformity.  It  is  not  as  it 
naturally  would  be  on  the  supposition  now  in  question.  See,  a  sower 
goes  (or  going')  out,  but  with  the  article,  and  in  the  aorist  or  past  tense, 
lo,  the  sower  leent  out.  The  Sower,  like  the  Fox  and  the  Lion  in  a 
fable,  is  generic,  meaning  the  whole  class,  or  an  ideal  individual  who 
represents  it.  Went  out,  as  we  say  in  colloquial  narrative,  once  upon 
a  time,  the  precise  date  being  an  ideal  one  because  the  act  is  one  of  con¬ 
stant  occurrence.  As  if  he  had  said,  ‘  a  sower  went  out  to  sow,  as  you 
have  often  done  and  seen  your  neighbour  do.’  To  sow,  distinguishes 
his  going  out  for  this  specific  purpose  from  his  going  out  on  other 
errands.  The  sower  went  out  as  such,  as  a  sower,  to  perform  the 
function  which  the  name  denotes. 

4.  And  when  he  sowed,  some  (seeds)  fell  by  the  way 
side,  and  the  fowls  came  and  devoured  them  up  : 

As  he  sowed,  literally,  in  the  (act  of)  sowing,  and,  therefore,  in  the 
field,  not  merely  on  the  way  to  it.  By  the  way  must,  therefore,  mean 
along  the  path  trodden  by  the  sower  himself  and  hardened  by  his  foot¬ 
steps,  not  along  the  highway  leading  to  his  place  of  labour.  This  idea 
is  distinctly  expressed  by  Luke  (8,  5),  and  it  was  trodden  down,  i.  e. 
it  fell  upon  the  path  where  lie  was  walking.  Some  is  understood  by 
every  reader  to  mean  some  of  the  seed  which  he  was  sowing,  the  noun, 
although  not  previously  mentioned  as  it  is  in  Luke  (8,  4),  being  nee- 


354 


MATTHEW  13,  4.  5.  6. 

essarily  suggested  by  the  kindred  verb,  to  soio,  in  sowing.  The  prin¬ 
cipal  circumstance  in  this  part  of  the  parable  is  not  the  treading  of  the 
seed,  which  Luke  only  adds  to  specify  the  place,  but  its  lying  exposed 
upon  the  trodden  path,  and  there  devoured  by  the  birds.  Fowl.^  now 
confined  to  certain  species  of  domesticated  birds,  is  co-extensive  in  old 
English  with  'bird  itself.  T'he  birds  which  his  hearers  well  knew  were 
accustomed  to  commit  such  depredations.  The  familiarity  of  this  oc¬ 
currence,  and  of  those  wdiich  follow,  must  have  brought  the  illustration 
home  to  the  business  and  bosoms  of  the  humblest  hearers,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  necessarily  precludes  the  idea  of  a  fiction,  when  real  facts 
were  so  abundant  and  accessible.  It  is  idle  to  object  that  this  particu¬ 
lar  sower  never  did  go  forth,  when  the  opposite  assertion  can  as  easily 
be  made,  and  when  the  terms  employed,  as  we  have  seen,  may  desig¬ 
nate  the  whole  class  of  sowers,  including  multitudes  of  individuals, 
or  any  of  these  whom  any  one  of  the  hearers  might  select  as  particu¬ 
larly  meant,  perhaps  himself,  perhaps  some  neighbouring  husbandman. 
Such  a  use  of  language,  when  applied  to  incidents  of  every-day  occur¬ 
rence,  is  as  far  as  possible  remote  from  fiction. 

5.  Some  fell  upon  stony  places,  where  they  had  not 
much  earth  :  and  forthwith  they  sprung  up,  because  they 
had  no  deepness  of  earth  : 

Others,  i.  e.  other  seeds  fell  upon  stony  (or  rocky  places),  plurals 
equivalent  to  Mark’s  collective  singulars  (4,  5).  The  reference  is  not 
to  loose  or  scattered  stones,  but  to  a  thin  soil  overspreading  a  stratum 
or  layer  of  concealed  rock.  Immediately^  by  Mark  also,  is  emphatic, 
the  rapid  germination  being  a  material  circumstance,  and  seemingly 
ascribed  to  the  shallowness  of  the  soil,  allowing  the  seed  no  room  to 
strike  deep  root,  but  only  to  spring  upwards.  The  same  idea  is  sug¬ 
gested  by  the  verb  itself,  a  double  compound  meaning  to  spring  up 
and  forth.  The  cause  assigned  by  Luke  (8,  6),  is  not  that  of  the 
speedy  germination,  but  of  the  premature  decay  that  followed  it,  as 
Matthew  describes  more  fully  in  the  next  verse. 

6.  And  when  the  sun  was  up,  they  were  scorched  ; 
and  because  they  had  no  root,  they  withered  away. 

There  is  a  peculiar  beauty  in  the  Greek  here,  which  cannot  be  re¬ 
tained  in  a  translation,  arising  from  the  use  of  the  same  verb  (but  in  a 
less  emphatic  form)  to  signify  the  rising  of  the  plant  and  of  the  sun, 
as  both  are  said  in  English  to  be  -wp,  when  one  is  above  the  surface  of 
the  earth  and  the  other  above  the  horizon.  Scorched  (or  &wr?zi)'and 
icithered  (or  dried.,  see  above  on  12,  10)  are  different  effects  ascribed  to 
different  causes.  The  first  is  the  evaporation  of  the  vital  sap  or  veg¬ 
etable  juices  by  the  solar  heat ;  the  other  their  spontaneous  failure 
from  the  want  of  a  tenacious  root.  Together  they  describe,  in  a  man¬ 
ner  at  once  accurate  and  simple,  the  natural  and  necessary  fate  of  a 
plant  without  sufficient  depth  of  soil,  however  quick  and  even  prema¬ 
ture  its  vegetation. 


355 


MATTHEW  13,7-10. 

7.  And  some  fell  among  tliorns  ;  and  the  thorns 
sprung  up^  and  choked  them  : 

Others,  as  in  v.  5.  Into  the  thorns,  or  in  the  midst  of  them,  as  it 
is  more  fully  expressed  by  Luke  (8,  7).  The  thorns,  which  happened 
to  be  growing  there,  or  which  are  usually  found  in  such  situations. 
Game  wp,  appeared  above  the  surface,  an  expression  constantly  em¬ 
ployed  in  English  to  denote  the  same  thing.  Gholced,  stifled  or  de¬ 
prived  of  life  by  pressure.  This  word,  though  strictly  applicable  only 
to  the  suffocation  of  animal  or  human  subjects  (see  Luke  8,  42),  is 
here,  by  a  natural  and  lively  figure,  transferred  to  the  fatal  influence  on 
vegetable  life  of  too  close  contact  with  a  different  and  especiallj'"  a 
ranker  growth.  Matthew  uses  an  emphatic  compound  of  the  Greek 
verb,  corresponding  to  our  own  familiar  phrase  choked  off. 

8.  But  others  fell  into  good  ground,  and  brought  forth 
fruit,  some  a  hundredfold,  some  sixtyfold,  some  thirty¬ 
fold. 

9.  Who  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear. 

Others,  as  in  vs.  5,  7.  It  is  a  minute  but  striking  proof  that  the 
evangelists  wrote  independently  of  each  other,  and  that  their  coinci¬ 
dence  of  language  arose  not  from  mutual  imitation,  but  from  sameness 
of  original  material,  that  in  these  three  verses  Matthew  always  says 
upon  (eVt),  Mark  into  or  among  {els).  Good  ground,  in  Greek,  the 
earth,  the  good,  earth  or  soil  properly  so  called  in  distinction  from  the 
beaten,  rocky,  thorny  places  before  mentioned.  Some,  the  proportion 
stated  being  that  of  the  seed  sown  to  the  ripe  grain  harvested.  The 
productiveness  ascribed  to  the  nutritious  grains  in  this  place  is  by 
no  means  unexampled,  either  in  ancient  or  modern  times.  It  is  in¬ 
deed  a  moderate  and  modest  estimate  compared  with  some  recorded 
by  Herodotus,  in  which  the  rate  of  increase  was  double  or  quadruple 
even  the  highest  of  the  three  here  mentioned,  and  the  recent  harvest  in 
our  western  states  affords  examples  of  increase  still  greater.  The  par¬ 
ticular  attention  of  the  hearers  is  invited  to  the  parable  in  v.  9,  by  a 
formula  occurring  in  II,  15  above,  and  there  explained. 

10.  And  the  disciples  came,  and  said  unto  him,  Why 
speakest  thou  unto  them  in  parables  ? 

Disciples,  not  in  the  strict  sense  of  apostles,  but  in  that  of  friendly 
hearers  and  adherents.  This  is  clear  from  Mark’s  description  (4,  10) 
those  about  him  with  the  twelve,  i.  e.  those  who  in  addition  to  the 
twelve  were  in  habitual  attendance  on  his  person,  following  him  from 
place  to  place ;  or  those  who,  upon  this  particular  occasion,  still  lymain- 
ed  about  him  after  the  dispersion  of  the  multitude.  Explained  in 
either  way,  the  words  are  probably  descriptive  of  the  same  class,  and 


S5G 


MATTHEW  13,  10.  11. 

imply  that  what  now  follows  was  addressed  neither  to  the  vast  mixed 
multitude,  nor  to  the  twelve  apostles  only,  but  to  an  intermediate 
body,  smaller  than  the  first  and  larger  than  the  second,  but  composed 
entirely  of  disciples  (Luke  8,  9)  or  believers  in  his  doctrine.  They  ap¬ 
pear  to  have  proposed  to  him  two  distinct  inquiries ;  first,  the  general 
one,  why  he  taught  in  parables  at  all ;  and  then,  the  more  specific  one, 
what  this  first  parable  was  meant  to  teach  (Luke  8,  9).  It  is  observable 
that  Mark,  although  he  gives  the  question  in  a  single  form,  and  that  a 
vague  one,  gives  the  answers  to  the  two  inquiries  really  involved  in  it ; 
a  circumstance  which  all  but  hypercritical  sceptics  will  regard,  not  as 
discrepancy,  but  agreement.  The  question  thus  interpreted  shows 
that  the  parabolic  method  of  instruction,  as  applied  now  for  the  first 
time  to  the  doctrine  of  the  kingdom,  was  obscure  or  unintelligible  even 
to  the  more  enlightened  of  our  Saviour’s  hearers ;  a  deficiency  which 
furnished  the  occasion  of  his  own  authoritative  exposition,  making 
known  not  only  the  precise  sense  of  the  parable  to  which  it  was  imme¬ 
diately  applied,  but  also  the  more  general  principles  and  laws  which 
are  to  govern  the  interpretation  of  all  others. 

11.  He  answered  and  said  nnto  them,  Because  it  is 
given  unto  you  to  know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  hut  to  them  it  is  not  given. 

We  have  here  the  answer  to  the  first  inquiry,  namely,  why  he 
spake  in  parables  at  all.  In  answer  to  this  question,  he  informs  them 
that  a  sifting,  separating  process  had  begun  already  and  must  be  con¬ 
tinued,  with  the  unavoidable  effect  of  throwing  all  his  hearers  into  two 
great  classes,  those  within  and  those  without  the  magic  circle  of  his  en¬ 
lightening  and  saving  influence.  The  difference  between  these  classes 
was  not  one  of  personal  intrinsic  merit,  but  of  divine  favour.  To  you  it 
hasheen  given,  the  perfect  passive  form,  implying  an  authoritative  pre¬ 
determination,  being  common  to  all  three  accounts,  as  in  our  Lord’s 
assurance  to  the  paralytic.  Thy  sins  have  been  forgiven  thee  (see  above, 
on  9,  2).  Given,  not  conceded  as  a  right,  but  granted  as  a  favour. 
To  hnoiv,  i.  e.  directly,  by  explicit  statement,  either  without  the  veil 
of  parable,  or  with  the  aid  of  an  infallible  interpretation.  Mysteries, 
in  the  usual  sense  of  that  word  as  employed  in  scripture  to  denote,  not 
the  intrinsic  nature  of  the  things  so  called,  but  merely  their  conceal¬ 
ment  from  the  human  mind  until  disclosed  by  revelation.  The  myste¬ 
ry  in  this  sense  here  particularly  meant  is  that  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  to  be  erected  by  Messiah  in  the  heart  of  man  and  of  society,  and 
to  receive  its  final  consummation  in  a  future  state  of  glory.  The  use 
of  this  expression  (of  the  being dom),  common  to  all  three  accounts  (see 
Mark  4,  11.  Luke  8,  10),  is  not  without  importance,  as  evincing  that 
the  parables  of  Christ  had  reference,  not  merely  to  personal  duty  and 
improvement,  but  to  the  nature  of  his  kingdom  and  the  mode  of  its 
establishment,  a  reference  too  often  overlooked  or  sacrificed  to  mere 
individual  edification.  To  those  without  the  sphere  or  scope  of  this 


357 


MATTHEW  13,11.12.13. 

illuminating  influence,  it  is  not  given^  i.  e.  in  the  same  way,  but 
by  parables.  (Mark  4,  11.) 

12.  For  whosoever  liatli,  to  him  shall  he  given,  and 
he  shall  have  more  abundance  :  hut  whosoever  hath  not, 
from  him  shall  he  taken  away  even  that  he  hath. 

This  aphorism  Luke  (8, 18)  agrees  with  Mark  (4,  25)  in  placing  at 
the  close  of  this  important  admonition.  The  question  of  arrangement 
is  of  less  importance,  as  our  Lord  appears  to  have  pursued  the  subject 
both  before  and  after  he  explained  the  parable  of  the  sower,  and  the 
only  difference  is  in  this  relative  position  of  the  sentence.  We  may 
either  suppose  therefore  that  he  uttered  the  words  twice,  or  regard  it 
as  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  they  preceded  or  followed  his  in¬ 
fallible  interpretation  of  the  Sower.  Applying  the  same  rule  of  expo¬ 
sition  as  before,  to  wit,  that  the  specific  application  of  such  maxims 
is  to  be  determined  by  the  context  in  every  given  case  of  their  occur¬ 
rence,  we  shall  find  that  the  one  here  uttered  has  respect  not  to  grace 
or  spiritual  influence  in  general,  but  to  illuminating  grace  or  spiritual 
knowledge  in  particular.  Our  Lord  exhorts  them  to  attend  to  what 
he  says,  and  lays  it  down  as  the  foundation  of  ulterior  attainments ; 
for  in  this  sense,  too,  it  may  be  said,  Whoever  has,  to  him  shall  he  given, 
i.  e.  whoever  takes,  keeps,  and  uses,  what  I  tell  him  now,  shall  know 
still  more  hereafter.  And  the  converse  is,  of  course,  true,  he  who  has 
not  (in  possession  and  in  use  what  I  have  previously  taught  him),  even 
ichat  he  has  (of  previous  knowledge  and  attainment,  or  even  of  this, 
as  a  mere  speculative  intellectual  possession)  shall  he  tahen  from  him. 
This  involves  a  threatening  of  divine  retribution,  but  is  strictly  and 
directly  the  announcement  of  a  general  law,  both  intellectual  and 
moral,  namely,  that  the  only  choice  is  between  loss  and  gain,  advance¬ 
ment  and  recession  ;  that  there  can  be  no  stagnation  or  repose ;  that 
the  only  method  of  securing  what  we  have  is  by  improving  it,  the  fail¬ 
ure  to  do  which  is  tantamount  to  losing  it  or  throwing  it  away.  It  is 
only  another  aspect  of  the  same  imiportant  lesson,  no  doubt  uttered  by 
our  Lord  in  some  discourse  upon  this  subject,  and  most  probably  in 
that  before  us,  that  Ave  find  in  Luke’s  report  of  it  (8,  18),  namely,  that 
the  value  of  previous  attainments  in  religious  knowledge,  unless  thus 
improved  and  advanced  upon,  is  only  specious  and  apparent,  and  that 
even  this,  in  case  of  failure  to  increase  and  grow,  will  be  withdrawn,  or 
seen  in  its  true  colours,  for  whoever  has  not  (in  possession  and  in  use 
wLat  I  have  taught  him,  but  imagines  that  he  can  retain  it  as  it  is 
without  its  growing  either  more  or  less),  even  lohat  he  (thus)  seems ^  to 
have  (or  thinks  he  has  of  spiritual  knowledge)  shall  he  tahen  from  him, 
not  as  an  arbitrary  punishment  inflicted  by  authority,  but  as  the  neces¬ 
sary  intellectual  and  moral  product  of  his  own  neglect. 

13.  Therefore  speak  I  to  them  in  parables  :  because 
they  seeing  see  not  ;  and  hearing  they  hear  not,  neither 
do  they  understand. 


358 


MATTHEW  13,13.14.15. 


Therefore^  literally,  for  this,  i.  e.  for  this  cause  or  reason,  may  refer 
grammatically  either  to  what  follows  or  what  goes  before.  If  the  lat¬ 
ter,  it  would  seem  to  mean,  ‘  according  to  the  principle  just  laid  down,  or 
because  to  him  who  hath  shall  be  given,  &c.’  If  the  latter,  the  expres¬ 
sion  simply  means,  ‘  I  will  tell  you  why  I  speak  to  them  in  parables.’ 
In  favour  of  the  first  construction  is  the  intimate  connection  then  ex¬ 
isting  between  this  verse  and  the  one  before  it ;  while  according  to  the 
other  the  transition  is  somewhat  abrupt.  Thus  far  it  might  have 
seemed  that  the  obtuseness  of  the  hearers  to  divine  instruction  was  a 
mere  misfortune,  having  no  connection  with  their  moral  character  and 
state.  But  now  the  Saviour  represents  it  as  the  consequence  of  sin, 
left  by  God  in  his  righteousness  to  operate  unchecked  in  one  class, 
but  gratuitously  counteracted  in  another.  The  terms  of  the  descrip¬ 
tion  here  are  borrowed  from  that  fearful  picture  of  judicial  blindness 
in  Isaiah  6,  10.  The  quotation  is  recorded  by  the  three  evangelists, 
but  much  more  formally  and  fully  by  Matthew.  In  this  verse  he  an¬ 
ticipates  it  by  a  description  of  the  actual  condition  of  the  people,  show¬ 
ing  that  the  prophecy  applied  to  them.  To  see  and  not  to  see,  hear 
and  not  hear,  was  a  paradoxical  Greek  proverb,  used  by  Demosthenes 
and  HUschylus  to  signify  a  mere  external  sensuous  perception  without 
intellectual  or  moral  conviction,  as  expressed  in  the  last  clause  of  the 
verse  before  us. 

14.  And  in  them  is  fulfilled  the  prophecy  of  Esaias, 
which  saith,  By  hearing  ye  shall  hear,  and  shall  not 
understand  ;  and  seeing  ye  shall  see,  and  shall  not  per¬ 
ceive  : 

Having  first  described  their  spiritual  state  in  terms  derived  from 
Isaiah,  he  now  quotes  the  prophecy  itself,  and  declares  it  to  be  verified 
in  them,  but  with  a  marked  variation  in  the  form  of  the  expression. 
What  the  Prophet  puts  into  the  form  of  an  ironical  command  or  ex- 
hortafion  to  do  the  very  thing  which  would  destroy  them,  our  Lord,  as 
JMatthew  here  reports  him,  turns  into  a  warning  or  prediction  that 
they  would  so  do.  This  is  certainly  involved  in  the  original,  and  only 
drawn  out  here  into  a  paraphrase.  The  Hebrew  idiom  is  retained, 
which  uses  two  forms  of  the  same  verb  for  intensity  or  more  exact  spe¬ 
cification.  Seeing  indeed,  or  seeing  still,  or  seeing  clearly,  so  far  as 
concerns  the  outward  object.  Hearing  indeed,  or  still,  or  clearly,  yet 
they  hear  not,  with  effect  or  to  any  useful  purpose.  Neither  do  they 
understand  (or  apprehend)  the  things  heard  in  their  spiritual  import. 


15.  For  this  people^s  lieart  is  waxed  gross,  and  (their) 
ears  are  dull  of  hearing,  and  their  eyes  they  have  closed  ; 
lest  at  any  time  they  should  see  with  (their)  eyes, 
and  hear  with  (their)  ears,  and  should  understand  with 


MATTHEW  13,15-18.  359 

(their)  hearty  and  should  he  converted,  and  I  should  heal 
them. 

The  description  of  v.  13  is  repeated,  but  with  more  exact  adherence 
to  Isaiah’s  words,  which  are  given  with  little  variation  in  the  language 
of  the  Septuagint  version.  Waxed  gross,  grown  fat,  here  a  figure  for 
inveterate  insensibility.  Their  ears  are  dull  of  hearing  is  a  para¬ 
phrase,  the  Greek  words  literally  meaning  they  hare  heard  hearily 
with  their  ears.  Closed,  literally,  shut  down,  shut  fast,  or  refused  to 
open.  The  last  clause  gives  the  judicial  end  or  purpose  of  their  being 
thus  abandoned,  lest  at  any  time  (or  some  time),  they  should  see  and 
hear  and  understand  and  turn  (or  be  converted),  and  be  healed  of  their 
spiritual  malady,  or  sin,  by  forgiveness,  as  the  figure  is  explained  by 
Mark  (10, 12). 


16.  But  blessed  (are)  your  eyes,  for  they  see  :  and 
your  ears,  for  they  hear. 

17.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you.  That  many  prophets 
and  righteous  (men)  have  desired  to  see  (those  things) 
which  ye  see,  and  have  not  seen  (them)  ;  and  to  hear 
(those  things)  which  ye  hear,  and  have  not  heard  (them). 

In  contrast  with  the  spiritual  blindness  and  stupidity  of  unbeliev¬ 
ers  he  congratulates  his  own  disciples,  not  the  twelve,  but  all  who  ac¬ 
knowledged  his  authority,  that  their  eyes  see  and  their  ears  hear  the 
glorious  things  revealed  by  him.  In  this  they  were  more  fortu¬ 
nate  qr  highly  favoured,  not  only  than  the  blinded  scribes  and  Phar¬ 
isees  around  them,  but  also  in  comparison  with  better  men  of  former 
times,  who  would  have  seen  and  heard  these  very  things  with  thank¬ 
fulness  and  joy,  but  died  before  the  time.  Prophets  and  just  men  seem 
to  be  combined  as  a  description  of  the  truly  pious,  or  of  good  men,  as 
in  10, 41  above. 

18.  Hear  ye  therefore  the  parable  of  the  sower. 

You,  therefore,  my  disciples,  as  distinguished  from  the  unbelieving 
world,  and  also  from  your  less  favoured  predecessors,  hear  the  parable 
of  the  sower,  i.  e.  hear  my  explanation  of  it  which  you  have  requested. 
This  explanation  is  not  only  in  itself  a  model  of  conciseness,  clearness, 
and  superiority  to  all  conceits  and  forced  analogies,  but  from  its  source 
and  author  an  invaluable  rule  and  guide  in  all  cases  of  the  same  kind, 
wfoere  we  have  not  the  advantage  of  an  infallible  interpretation.  It  be¬ 
comes  us,  therefore,  in  the  twm  authoritative  expositions  here  recorded 
for  our  learning,  to  observe  not  only  what  our  Saviour  does  but  what 
he  leaves  undone,  the  neglect  of  which  has  led  to  the  excesses  and  ab' 


360 


MATTHEW  13,18.19.20. 


surdities  of  ultra-allegorical  interpretation.  These  are  left  without  ex¬ 
cuse  by  our  Lord’s  condescending  here  to  teach  the  fundamental  prin¬ 
ciples  of  parabolical  interpretation.  It  is  impossible  to  overrate  the 
value  of  this  clew  to  guide  us  through  the  labyrinth  of  various  and 
discordant  expositions,  or  its  actual  effect,  when  faithfully  employed, 
in  guarding  the  interpreter  against  the  opposite  extremes  of  meagre 
generality  and  fanciful  minuteness.  It  was  not  only  placed  here  in  the 
history,  but  uttered  when  it  was,  that  it  might  serve  as  an  example 
and  a  model  in  interpreting  those  parables  which  Christ  has  not  ex- 
plaiiied  himself.  Some  of  the  errors  thus  forbidden  and  condemned, 
if  not  prevented,  will  be  noticed  in  expounding  the  ensuing  verses. 

19.  When  any  one  heareth  the  word  of  the  kingdom, 
and  nnderstandeth  (it)  not,  then  cometh  the  wicked 
(one),  and  catcheth  away  that  which  was  sown  in  his 
heart.  This  is  he  which  received  seed  by  the  way  side. 

The  characters  about  to  be  described  are  those  whose  case  is  repre¬ 
sented  b}^  the  falling  of  the  seed  upon  the  path.  This  is  he  (literall}") 
sown  hy  the  imy.  The  incongruity,  alleged  by  some,  of  making  the 
seed  represent  the  man,  and  not  the  word  is  a  mere  rhetorical  punctilio, 
and  presents  no  difficulty  to  the  mind  of  any  unbiassed  reader.  The 
parable  has  answered  its  design  for  ages,  notwithstanding  this  alleged'^ 
flaw  in  its  imagery,  which  probably  occurs  to  none  but  hypercritics. 
When  they  (the  persons  represented  in  this  portion  of  the  parable) 
hear  (or  have  heard')  the  word  (just  represented  as  seed  sown),  imme- 
diatel}?  comes  the  Evil  One,  elsewhere  called  the  Devil  (Luke  8,  12), 
and  Satan,  or  the  Adversary  (Mark  4,  15).  Catcheth  away^  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  picking  of  grain  by  birds  (see  above  on  v.  4).  Soivn  in  his 
hearty  a  mixture  of  the  sign  and  the  thing  signified,  producing  ho  con¬ 
fusion,  and  objectionable  only  on  the  ground  of  rhetorical  preciseness. 
The  influence  here  ascribed  to  Satan  must  be  strictly  understood  as 
really  exerted  by  him  in  the  case  of  those  who  hear  the  word,  but  only 
as  a  persuasive,  not  a  coercive  power,  and,  therefore,  exercised  by  turn¬ 
ing  the  attention  from  the  word  as  soon  as  uttered,  and  diverting  it  to 
other  objects. 

20.  But  lie  that  received  the  seed  into  stony  places, 
the  same  is  he  that  heareth  the  word,  and  anon  with  joy 
receiveth  it ; 

He  now  identifies  the  second  class  of  fruitless  and  unprofitable 
hearers,  those  represented  in  the  parable  by  the  falling  of  the  seed 
on  stony  places.  Here  again  he  seems  to  make  the  seed  the  emblem 
of  the  man  himself,  and  not  of  the  word  preached  to  him,  but  with  as 
little  disadvantage  to  the  force  and  clearness  of  the  illustration  as  be¬ 
fore,  and  in*  the  exercise  of  that  discretionaiy  license  which  distin- 


MATTHEW  13,  20,  21. 


3G1 


e:iiislies  original  and  independent  thinkers,  eyen  among  mere  men,  from 
the  grammarians  and  rhetoricians.  Every  ordinary  reader  understands, 
without  instruction,  that  the  (one)  sown '^qjon  the  rocky  (places)  means 
those  whose  character  and  state  are  represented  by  the  falling  of  the  seed 
upon  the  rock,  and  not  that  the  seed  itself  specifically  represents  the 
persons.  The  paraphrastic  version  in  our  Bible  is  entirely  gratuitous. 
This  portion  of  the  parable,  like  that  preceding  it,  exhibits  a  distinct 
class  of  hearers,  and  the  intiuence  exerted  on  them  by  the  doctrine  of 
the  kingdom.  The  ditference  between  the  cases  is  that  these  go  fur¬ 
ther,  and  not  only  hear  the  word,  or  passively  receive  it,  but  accept  it 
as  the  word  of  God,  and  that  not  merel}^  with  a  cold  assent  or  forced 
submission,  but  with  joy,  as  something  addressed  to  the  affections,  no 
less  than  the  reason  and  the  conscience,  and  received  accordingly,  at 
once,  iminedmtely ^  which,  though  a  favourite  expression  of  Mark  (1, 
10.  18.31.42.  2,2.  3,  C),  is  attested  as  genuine,  not  by  his  report  alone 
(4,  IG),  wdiich  would  have  been  sufficient  for  the  purpose,  but  by  that 
of  Matthew.  The  obvious  gradation  in  the  parable  not  only  renders 
it  more  perfect  in  a  literary  point  of  view,  but  increases  its  discriminat¬ 
ing  power  as  applied  to  individual  and  general  experience,  so  that  every 
class  of  hearers,  even  now,  and  still  more  in  the  time  of  Christ,  might 
see  itself  as  in  a  mirror.  Indeed,  nothing  shows  the  wisdom  of  our 
Lord’s  instructions  more  impressively  than  the  fact,  confirmed  by  all 
experience  for  1800  years,  and  receiving  further  confirmation  every 
da}’’,  that  all  varieties  of  human  and  religious  character  may  be  reduced 
to  some  one  or  more  of  his  simple  but  divine  descriptions. 


21.  Yet  hath  he  not  root  in  himself,  hut  clureth  for  a 
tvhile  :  for  when  tribulation  or  persecution  ariseth  because 
of  the  word,  by  and  by  he  is  offended. 

While  the  first  seed  was  not  even  buried,  but  removed  while  on  the 
surface,  the  second  was  not  only  sown,  but  came  up  prematurely  and 
without  a  root,  wdiich  same  expression  our  Lord  now  applies  to  the 
class  here  represented,  namely,  those  who  hare  no  root  ini  theinsehes, 
i.  e.  what  in  our  religious  phraseology  (here  founded  upon  Job  19,  28) 
is  called  ^‘the  root  of  the  matter,”  i.  e.  a  principle  of  true  religion,  in¬ 
cluding  or  implying  faith,  repentance,  and  the  love  of  God,  producing 
an  analogous  external  life.  This  show's  in  W'hat  sense  Luke  describes 
them  (8, 13)  as  believing  for  a  while,  i.  e.  professing  or  appearing  to  be¬ 
lieve  while  really  w'ithout  the  root  of  true  conviction  and  conversion. 
Matthew  expresses  the  same  thing  more  concisely  in  a  single  wmrd, 
temporary^  made  up  of  the  noun  and  preposition  here  employed  by 
Luke,  and  clsew'here  rendered  tempjoral  (2  Cor.  4.  18,  as  opposed  to 
eternal)^  or  paraphrased, a  season  (Ileb.  11,  25).  Distress  ox  perse¬ 
cution^  kindred  but  distinct  terms,  one  originally  signifjdng  pressure^ 
and  the  other  pursuit^  the  former  comprehending  providential 
chastisements,  the  latter  denoting  more  specifically  evils  inflicted 

16 


362 


MATTHEW  13,21.22. 


by  the  hands  of  human  enemies.  Foi'  (because  or  on  account 
of)  the  wordj  the  doctrine  of  Christ’s  kingdom,  which  they  had 
so  joyfully  embraced,  and  for  a  time  so  ojoenly  maintained.  Aris- 
eth  is  in  Greek  an  absolute  construction,  being,  beginning  to 
be,  coming  to  pass,  happening.  Immediately,  both  in  Matthew 
and  Mark  (4, 17),  but  with  a  difference  of  form  and  euSecos), 

the  repetition  showing  that  the  real  change  for  the  worse  is  as 
sudden  and  as  easy  as  the  apparent  change  for  the  better.  Offended, 
not  in  the  ordinary  modern  sense  of  being  displeased  or  alienated  in 
affection,  but  in  the  Latin  and  old  English  sense  of  stumbling  or  being 
made  to  stumble.  The  nearest  root  or  theme  to  which  it  can  be  traced 
in  classic  Greek,  denotes  a  trap  or  snare,  but  in  the  Hellenistic  dialect 
a  stumbling  block  or  hindrance  in  the  path,  over  which  one  may  fall. 
In  like  manner  the  derivative  verb  means  to  make  one  fall  or  stumble, 
a  natural  figure  both  for  sin  and  error,  and  often  representing  both  as 
commonly  connected  in  experience.  Another  explanation  of  the  usage, 
leading  to  the  same  result,  gives  offend  its  modern  sense,  but  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  God,  to  offend  whom  is  to  sin,  and  then  takes  the  verb  here  in 
a  causative  sense,  they  are  made  to  sin,  or  betrayed  into  sinning  against 
God.  As  the  sin  here  meant  is  not  such  as  even  true  believers  may 
commit,  but  one  arising  from  the  absence  of  a  root  in  the  experience, 
Luke  (8,  13)  describes  it  by  the  stronger  term,  apostatize  (or  fall 
aicay),  not  from  a  previous  state  of  grace  or  true  conversion,  which 
would  imply  the  very  thing  explicitly  denied  in  the  preceding  clause, 
to  wit,  the  possession  of  a  root,  but  from  their  ostensible  and  false  pro¬ 
fession. 


22.  He  also  that  received  seed  among  fhe  thorns  is  he 
that  heareth  the  word  ;  and  the  care  of  this  world,  and 
the  deceitfulness  of  riches,  choke  the  word,  and  he  he- 
cometh  unfruicfal. 

Another  class  of  fruitless  hearers  represented  in  this  parable  a7^e 
those  sown  among  the  thoims,  i.  e.  those  whose  case  is  symbolized 
or  emblematically  set  forth  by  the  falling  of  a  portion  of  the  seed 
among  thorns.  The  form  of  expression  is  the  same  as  in  vs.  19.  20. 
and  is  uniform  in  all  the  gospels,  a  sufficient  proof  that  it  is  not 
an  inadvertence  or  mistake  of  the  historian,  but  at  least  in  substance 
a  deliberate  expression  of  our  Lord  himself.  Common  to  this  with 
the  other  classes  here  described  is  the  hearing  of  the  word,  because 
the  very  purpose  of  the  parable  is  to  exhibit  different  ways  in  which 
it  may  be  heard  with  the  effect  upon  the  hearer.  Some  suppose  the 
climax  or  gradation  to  be  here  continued,  and  this  third  class  of 
hearers  to  be  represented  as  going  further  than  the  second.  But  it 
seems  more  natural  to  make  the  two  co-ordinate  as  different  divisions 
of  the  same  class,  i,  e.  of  temporary  converts  or  believers,  the  differ¬ 
ence  between  them  being  not  that  one  continues  longer  than  the  other, 


0 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  13,  22.  23.  363 

but  that  one  is  scandalized  by  violence,  the  other  by  allurement  or 
seouction.  While  the  former  yield  to  distress  and  perseciUion.  these 
are  rendered  fruitless  by  the  cares  and  pleasures  of  the  world.  Care 
undue  solicitudes,  anxieties,  and  fears,  as  to  the  interests  of  this  jife 
The  corresponding  verb  (translated  in  our  Bible  by  the  old  English 
phrase  to  take  thought^  i.  e.  to  be  over  anxious)  is  applied  by  our 
Lord  elsewhere  in  the  same  way  (see  above,  on  6,  25-34,  and  compare 
Luke  10,  41).  Of  this  loorld  (or,  according  to  the  critics,  the  icorld)^ 
the  same  Greek  word  that  was  explained  above  (on  12,  32),  as  meanim^ 
properly  duration  or  continued  existence,  either  definite  or  indefinite^ 
finite  or  infinite,  according  to  the  context.  Some  suppose  it  here  to 
mean  the  old  economy  or  dispensation,  to  which  secular  anxieties  were 
more  appropriate,  and  even  necessarily  incident,  than  to  the  new.  But 
it  is  more  natural  to  understand  it  of  the  present  life,  with  its  tem¬ 
porary  interests  and  pleasures,  as  opposed  to  the  future  and  eternal 
state.  Besides  the  cares  or  anxious  fears  belonging  to  this  mixed  and 
in  a  certain  sense  probationary  state,  and  relating  chiefly  to  the  means 
of  subsistence,  our  Lord  specifies  another  danger,  the  deceit  of  icealth, 
including  both  delusive  hope  and  fanciful  e]ijo3'ment,  and  applying, 
therefore,  both  to  those  who  make  haste  to  be  rich,  as  being  the  true 
source  of  happiness,  and  those  who  reckon  themselves  actually  happy 
because  rich  already.  Choice  the  word^  as  in  the  parable  itself  (v.  7) 
the  thorns  cholced  the  seed^  another  mixture  of  the  sign  and  the  thing 
signed,  but  still  less  confusing  than  in  vs.  19.  20.  because  even  in  the 
parable  to  choice  is  a  strong  figure  as  applied  to  plants,  requiring  little 
modification  to  adapt  it  to  spiritual  subjects.  The  same  thing  sub¬ 
stantially  is  true  of  the  remaining  clause,  and  it  becomes  unfruitful^ 
i.  e,  the  word  or  truth  considered  as  a  seed,  because  intended  to  produce 
beneficial  effects  upon  the  life  and  character  of  those  who  hear  it. 

23.  But  lie  that  received  seed  into  the  good  ground 
is  he  that  heareth  the  word,  and  understandeth  (it)  ; 
which  also  heareth  fruit,  and  hringeth  forth,  some  a  hun¬ 
dredfold,  some  sixty,  some  thirty. 

Having  thus  applied  the  three  ideal  cases  of  unfruitful  sowing  to 
three  well-known  forms  of  human  experience,  our  Lord  concludes  his 
exposition  of  the  parable,  by  doing  the  same  thing  with  respect  to 
the  one  favourable  case  which  it  presented,  but  which  really  includes 
a  vast  variety,  at  least  in  the  measure  or  degree  of  fruitfulness,  denot¬ 
ed  by  the  ratio  or  proportion  of  the  fruit  or  ripe  grain  to  the  seed  or 
sown  grain.  The  {one)  sown^  as  in  v.  22,  i.  e.  whose  case  is  represent¬ 
ed  by  the  sowing  upon  good  ground.  These,  like  all  the  others,  hear 
the  iDord^  receive  instruction  in  the  doctrine  of  the  kingdom,  and  like 
two  of  the  preceding  classes,  actively  accept  it,  with  assent  and  appro¬ 
bation,  but  unlike  them  all,  escaping  or  resisting  the  occasions  of  un¬ 
fruitfulness  before  describe^  retain  it  (Luke  8, 15)  and  lear  fruity  not 


364 


MATTHEW  13,23.24. 


merely  for  a  time,  but  in  continuance,  with  perseverance,  and  yet  with 
great  diversity  .  of  actual  attainment,  corresponding  to  the  different 
proportions  which  the  crop  bears  to  the  literal  seed  sown,  which  Luke 
omits,  but  Mark  and  Matthew  here  repeat,  though  not  in  the  same 
order  (Mark  4,  20.  thirty^  sixty,  a  hundred).  Even  the  most  unre¬ 
flecting  reader  cannot  need  to  be  reminded,  that  the  numbers  thus  se¬ 
lected  are  intended  to  convey  the  general  idea  of  proportional  diver¬ 
sity,  and  not  to  limit  that  diversity  to  three  specific  rates.  Hence  our 
Lord,  in  expounding  this  part  of  the  parable,  simply  repeats  what  he 
had  said  in  the  parable  itself,  without  attaching  a  specific  import  to 
the  several  amounts,  a  lesson  and  example  to  inferior  expounders,  not 
only  here  but  in  all  analogous  cases.  The  same  thing  might  be  said  in 
substance  of  the  three  cases  of  unfruitfulness,  except  that  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that  they  are  not  given  merely  as  selected  samples,  ^ 
but  as  comprehensive  heads  to  which  all  particular  occasions  of  un¬ 
fruitfulness  in  spiritual  husbandry  may  be  reduced. 

24.  Another  parable  put  he  forth  unto  them,  saying, 
The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  likened  unto  a  man  which 
sowed  good  seed  in  his.  field  : 

There  is  here  no  mark  of  time  or  of  immediate  succession,  as  in  v. 

1,  and  although  the  general  presumption  is  in  favour  of  the  latter,  yet 
the  practice  of  Matthew  and  the  structure  of  his  gospel  leave  us  at 
liberty  to  suppose  that  this  parable  was  uttered  on  a  different  occasion, 
and  only  introduced  here  to  complete  the  exemplification  of  our 
Saviour’s  parabolic  mode  of  teaching.  At  the  same  time  there  is 
nothing  to  require  this  supposition  but  strong  reasons  for  the  contrary 
assumption,  as  we  shall  see  below.  Put  fortli.^  laid  before  (or  by) 
them,  a  verb  often  used  in  reference  to  food  (Mark  6,  41.  8,  G.  7.  Luke 
10,  8.  11,  G.  Acts  IG,  34.  1  Cor.  10,  27),  and,  therefore,  specially  ap¬ 
propriate  in  its  figurative  application  to  the  furnishing  of  intellectual 
and  spiritual  aliment.  This  parable,  like  that  before  it,  and  another 
which  occurs  below  (vs.  31.  32),  is  derived  from  the  processes  of  hus¬ 
bandry,  in  which  a  large  proportion  of  the  hearers  were  no  doubt 
employed,  and  with  which  all  would  be  more  or  less  familiar.  The 
hi'iigdom  of  heaven^  as  usual  in  this  history,  denotes  the  reign  of  the 
Messiah,  or  the  new  economy,  with  special  reference,  in  this  case,  to  its 
inception  and  its  earlier  stages.  Is  lihenef  literally,  was  (or  has  been) 
likened^  which  can  hardly  mean  compared.^  or  likened  in  discourse,  as 
in  11,  IG.  where  the  active  voice  and  future  tense  are  used,  but  rather 
actual  assimilation  by  the  progress  of  events.  The  kingdom  of  heaven, 
even  in  that  early  stage  of  its  development,  had  already  begun  to 
exhibit  the  unwholesome  mixture  which  this  parable  describes.  A 
third  form  of  expression,  which  occurs  below  in  25,  1.  refers  the  para¬ 
ble  to  changes  not  3mt  fully  realized.  To  a  man^  that  is,  to  the  case, 
conduct,  or  condition  of  a  man.  The  attempt  to  press  the  phraseology, 
as  meaning  that  the  man  himself  specifically  represents  the  kingdom, 
is  as  false  in  taste  as  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  masterly  freedom  of 


3G5 


MATTHEW  13,24-27. 

our  Lord  in  the  use  of  parabolic  imagery.  (See  above,  on  y.  19  and 
on  9,  37.)  Which  sowed,  literally,  soioing,  here  expressive  not ’of  a 
habit  or  a  custom,  but  of  an  act  performed  on  a  particular  occasion  as 
appears  from  the  whole  narrative  that  follows.  Good  seed,  not  merely 
good  of  its  kind,  but  of  a  good  kind,  of  the  right  kind,  some  nutritious 
grain,  as  opposed  to  the  poisonous  or  worthless  weeds  which  are  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  next  verse. 

25.  But  while  men  slept,  liis  enemy  came  and  sowed 
tares  among  the  wheat,  and  went  his  way. 

Literally,  in  meids  sleepirg,  not  on  that  occasion  merely  but  in 
general,  as  a  specification  of  the  time,  when  men  sleep,  namely,  in  the 
night.  It  is  not,  therefore,  an  implied  censure  of  the  farmer  or  his  ser¬ 
vants,  who  in  that  case  would  have  been  more  clearl}^  pointed  out,  both 
in  the  parable  itself  and  in  the  explanation  of  it.  (See  below,  on  vs. 
38.  39.)  The  meaning  obviously  is,  at  the  time  when  men  as  usual 
were  sleeping,  and  in  consequence  unable  to  discover  or  prevent  it. 
His  enemy,  no  doubt  an  unfriendly  neighbour,  such  as  too  often  may 
be  found  in  rural  districts,  as  well  as  in  the  populous  city.  .  Tares, 
according  to  the  Rabbins,  a  grain  very  similar  to  wheat,  and  not  only 
worthless  but  injurious  in  its  effects.  Modern  writers  understand  the 
Greek  word  as  denoting  a  species  of  the  darnel.  The  botanical  ques¬ 
tion  is  of  no  importance  to  the  meaning  of  the  parable.  Among  is  in 
Greek  a  strong  expression  (dm  yia-ov)  meaning  through  (or  up  and 
down),  the  midst  (or  middle)  of  the  icheat.  And  loent  away,  as  secretly 
as  he  had  come,  without  detection  or  discover}?-.  This  would  also  sug¬ 
gest  the  idea,  that  the  work  was  done,  the  mischief  was  accomplished, 
and  required  no  further  care  or  labour,  as  the  wheat  did. 

26.  But  when  the  blade  was  siDrung  up,  and  brought 
forth  fruit,  then  appeared  the  tares  also. 

But  (Sed,  in  contrast  with  this  silent  secret  operation.  Or  the 
particle  may  be  translated  and,  as  in  v.  7,  and  often  elsewhere,  and  be 
taken  as  a  mere  connective.  Blade,  the  word  translated  grass  in  6, 
30.  but  denoting  in  both  places,  that  stage  in  the  progress  of  the  plant 
when  it  resembles  grass  externally.  In  14,  19.  grass  is  used  correctly 
in  its  usual  or  proper  sense.  Was  sprung  up,  came  up,  germinated, 
sprouted,  and  brought  forth,  literally,  made,  produced,  fruit.  Ap¬ 
peared,  in  Greek  a  passive  form,  was  brought  to  view,  was  rendered 
visible,  was  made  to  appear,  but  constantly  employed  as  a  deponent, 
corresponding  to  the  English  word  here  used. 

27.  So  the  servants  of  the  householder  came  and 
said  unto  him.  Sir,  didst  not  thou  sow  good  seed  in  thy 
held  ?  from  whence  then  hath  it  tares  ? 


366 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  13,  27.  28.  29. 

So,  the  same  connective  (Se)  that  is  rendered  hut  at  the  beginning 
of  V.  25.  The  English  word  is  also  here  used,  not  in  its  comparative 
and  proper  sense,  but  as  a  resumptive  or  continuative  particle  of  con¬ 
stant  use  in  our  familiar  narrative  style.  Servants,  slaves,  with  special 
reference  to  those  employed  in  field-work.  The  interrogation  presup¬ 
poses  an  affirmative  answer,  and  is,  therefore,  equivalent  to  a  positive 
assertion,  which  is  made  the  ground  of  the  ensuing  real  question,  i.  e. 
one  intended  to  elicit  information.  Whence,  from  what  source  or 
quarter,  by  what  means  or  agency  ?  Then,  therefore,  since  it  had  been 
sown  with  good  seed.  Has  it  (does  the  field  contain  and  now  exhibit) 
tares  (as  well  as  wheat)  ?  There  is  something  lifelike  in  the  very 
simplicity  of  this  brief  dialogue,  entirely  in  keeping  with  the  supposi¬ 
tion  that  this  parable  like  all  the  rest  relates  a  real  incident.  (See 
above,  on  v.  3.) 

28.  He  said  unto  them,  An  enemy  hath  done  this. 
The  servants  said  unto  him,  Wilt  thou  then  that  we  go 
and  gather  them  up  ? 

The  particle  translated  so  at  the  beginning  of  v.  27,  is  here  omitted 
altogether.  This  was  probably  a  mere  inadvertence  on  the  part  of 
Tyndale.  carelessly  retained  by  Cranmer  and  the  common  version.  It 
has  no  efiect  upon  the  sense,  but  renders  the  construction  more  abrupt 
than  is  usual  either  in  Greek  or  Hebrew  narrative.  An  enemy,  in 
Greek,  an  enemy  (or  hostile)  man,  the  first  word  being  properly  an 
adjective,  though  absolutely  used,  i.  e.  -without  a  substantive,  from 
Hesiod  downwards.  Man  is  here  not  simply  pleonastic,  but  equivalent 
to  saying,  one  who  is  an  enemy  or  hostile,  thus  making  somewhat 
prominent  the  attitude  or  character  of  enmity,  whereas  an  enemy 
would  put  the  emphasis  upon  the  person.  Did  this,  and  by  implica¬ 
tion,  did  it  at  a  certain  time,  to  wit,  before  the  wheat  had  come  up. 
Wilt  thou,  is  it  thy  desire  or  wish,  not  merely,  art  thou  willing?  (See 
above,  on  12,  38.)  The  construction  here  is  foreign  from  our  idiom, 
though  the  sense  is  clear.  Wilt  thou  going  we  may  gather  them  (i.  e. 
the  tares)  ? 

29.  But  he  said.  Nay  ;  lest  while  ye  gather  up  the 
tares,  ye  root  up  also  the  wheat  with  them. 

But,  the  particle  omitted  in  v.  28,  and  rendered  so  in  v.  27,  but  in 
Greek  having  precisely  the  same  force  in  all  these  cases,  namely,  that 
of  a  connective  or  continuative  particle.  Hay,  in  modern  Englisli,  no, 
in  Greek  and  Latin,  and  some  modern  languages  identical  with  not, 
and  in  all  the  correlative  or  opposite  of  yea,  yes  (val,  5,  37.  9,  28.  11, 
9.  26).  that  not,  a  compound  particle  originally  meaning,  lest  at 

any  time  (or  some  time),  and  correctly  so  translated  in  4,  6.  5,  25.  and 
V.  15  above,  but  sometimes  used  with  little  or  no  reference  to  time,  as 
in  7.  6.  15,  39.  25  9  and  the  verse  before  us.  While  ye  gather,  liter- 


367 


MA  TTIIE  W  13,  29.  30.  31. 

ally,  gathering^  a  favourite  Greek  construction  and  entirely  consistent 
with  our  idiom,  though  almost  constantly  avoided  in  the  old  English 
versions.  Root  up,  literally,  root  out^  tear  out  by  the  roots,  eradicate. 
Also  is  not  expressed  in  Greek  unless  included  in  the  adverb  (a^a) 
meaning  at  the  same  time^  simultaneously,  which  here  and  often  else¬ 
where  has  the  force  of  a  preposition  governing  the  dative  (auroT?),  to¬ 
gether  (at  the  same  time)  with  them.  The  wisdom  of  this  agricultural 
reason  for  refusing  to  allow  the  extirpation  of  the  tares,  is  not  without 
importance  in  its  bearing  on  the  spiritual  application.  (See  below,  on 
V.  40.) 

30.  Let  botli  grow  togetlier  until  the  harvest :  and  in 
the  time  of  harvest  I  will  say  to  the  reapers,  Gather  ye 
together  first  the  tares,  and  hind  them  in  bundles  to  burn 
them  :  but  gather  the  wheat  into  my  barn. 

Let,  permit,  suffer,  but  in  Greek  suggesting  the  original  idea  of  the 
verb,  which  is  to  leave  or  let  alone.  (Compare  3,  15.  5.  40.  7,  4.  8, 
22.  with  4. 11.  20.  22.  5,  24.  8,  15.)  Groio  together  is  in  Greek  pecu¬ 
liarly  emphatic,  as  being  one  compounded  word  {(jvvav^avea^ai).  Ilar- 
rest,^  a  Hellenistic  noun  formed  from  the  verb  to  reap  or  mow,  here 
denoting  not  the  season  merely  but  the  act  or  operation,  as  appears 
from  the  expression  in  the  next  clause,  time  of  harvest.  (Wiclif 
translates  the  first  word,  reaving  time,,  the  second,  time  of  ripe  corn.) 
Reapers.,  though  entirely  unlike  in  English,  is  a  collateral  derivative 
from  the  same  Greek  verb  Hepiagos^  SepLo-T-qs).  x\nother  pair 

of  cognate  words  (dpa-are,  deapas)  is  exactly  and  felicitously  rendered 
b}'"  a  corresponding  pair  in  English  {hind  and  hundles).  As  to  the 
burning  of  the  iveeds,  see  above,  on  6,  30.  First,,  before  the  wheat  is 
reaped,  which  was  probably  the  customary  order.  But,  when  the 
worthless  vegetation  lias  been  thus  disposed  of.  Gather.,T\ol  the  same 
verb  with  the  one  in  the  first  clause,  but  synonymous  in  usage,  one 
originally  meaning  to  lay  or  place,  and  the  other  to  lead  or  bring,  to¬ 
gether.  Barn,  granar}'-,  or  storehouse  (see  above,  on  2,  12.  G,  36,  in 
the  former  of  which  places  it  is  rendered  garner). 

31.  Another  parable  put  he  forth  unto  them,  saying. 
The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  to  a  grain  of  mustard  seed, 
which  a  man  took,  and  sowed  in  his  field  : 

This  is  a  third  parable  derived  from  agricultural  experience,  to 
which  Mark  (4,  26-29)  adds  another,  but  omits  that  of  the  tares. 
This  shows  the  independent  choice  of  the  evangelists  in  working  up 
the  same  materials,  and  also  the  abundance  of  our  Saviour’s  illustra¬ 
tions  drawn  from  common  life,  of  which  these  arc  probably  mere  speci¬ 
mens  or  samples.  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  here  itself  said  to  be 
like  a  grain  of  mustard-seed,  a  form  of  expression  which,  as  we  have 
seen  (on  v.  24),  is  not  to  be  undufi^  pressed,  but  which  may  here  be 


368 


M  A  T  T 11  E  W  13,  31.  32. 


strictly  understood,  as  the  truth  taught  is  the  expansive  nature  of 
religion,  or  of  Christ’s  kingdom  both  in  society  at  large  and  in  the 
hearts  of  individuals.  A  grain  of  mustard  seed^  or  single  seed  of  mus¬ 
tard.  Botanists  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  plant  here  meant;  but  it  is 
certain  that  an  herb,  of  more  than  ordinary  size,  and  bearing  fruit 
resembling  mustard,  has  been  found  by  modern  travellers  in  the  Holy 
Land.  Talcing  sowed^  a  pleonastic  form,  or  rather  fulness  of  descrip¬ 
tion,  not  uncommon  in  colloquial  narrative.  Field  is  not  exclusive 
but  inclusive  of  what  we  call  a  garden,  the  Greek  word  denoting  not 
the  size  but  the  fact  of  cultivation. 

32.  Whicli  indeed  is  the  least  of  all  seeds  :  but  when 
Jt  is  grown,  it  is  the  greatest  among  herbs,  and  becometh 
a  tree,  so  that  the  birds  of  the  air  come  and  lodge  in 
the  branches  thereof 

This  is  not  a  botanical  dictum  but  a  popular  hyperbole,  or  rather 
a  relative  expression,  meaning  the  smallest  of  domestic  garden  seeds  in 
proportion  to  the  size  of  the  plant  which  it  produces.  Greatest^  as  in 
11,  11.  is  an  English  superlative  used  to  represent  a  Greek  comparative. 
The  literal  translation  is.  greater  than  the  herhs^  i.  e.  the  pot-herbs, 
garden  vegetables,  raised  for  domestic  use.  Even  this  phrase  is  substan¬ 
tially,  though  not  in  form,  superlative,  the  meaning  obviously  being, 
greater  than  the  (other,  and  by  implication,  all  the  other)  herbs.  But  the 
form  of  expression  in  English  is  much  stronger,  and,  therefore,  not  ex¬ 
act  as  a  translation.  Becomes^  the  true  sense  of  the  verb  so  often  ren¬ 
dered  by  our  verb  to  be  (see  on  4,  3.  5,  45.  6,  10.  9,  16.  10, 16.  12,  45. 
and  V.  22  above).  A  tree,  as  distinguished  from  a  mere  plant  or  gar¬ 
den-herb  in  size.  Birds  of  the  air,  literall}’-,  of  heaven,  as  in  6,  26. 
8,  20,  where  this  form  of  expression  is  explained.  Gome,  resort  to  it 
by  choice  as  a  convenient  resting-place.  Lodge,  find  shelter,  the  verb 
corresponding  to  the  noun  in  8,  20.  The  sense  given  in  the  older  Eng¬ 
lish  versions  (Tyndale,  build  ;  Cranmer,  make  their  nests)  is  too  specific, 
and  at  variance  with  the  fact  as  stated  by  the  Spanish  commentator 
Maldonatus,  who  observes  that  he  had  sometimes  seen  large  groves  of 
sinafi  (or  oriental  mustard)  and  the  birds  sitting  on  the  branches,  but 
had  never  seen  their  nests  there.  Though  we  have  not  the  advantage 
of  our  Lord’s  authoritative  exposition  of  this  parable,  as  in  those  of  the 
sower  and  the  tares,  we  have  another,  that  of  general  and  even  univer¬ 
sal  agreement  among  all  interpreters,  that  this  one  was  intended  to  set 
forth,  by  livel}^  and  familiar  images,  the  rapid  progress  of  the  true  re¬ 
ligion  from  what  seemed  to  be  feeble  and  contemptible  beginnings, 
calling  forth  a  repetition  of  the  prophet’s  question,  “Who  hath 
despised  the  day  of  small  things  ?”  (Zech.  4,^10.)  As  this  process, 
though  in  progress,  was  as  yet  very  far  from  its  completion,  our  Lord 
uses  neither  the  past  tense  (as  in  v.  24)  nor  the  future  (as  in  25,  1), 
but  the  comprehensive  present,  it  is  like,  (already,)  and  will  be  still 
more  like  hereafter. 


369 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  13,  3 


33  Another  parable  spake  he  unto  them  ;  The  kino’- 
dom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  leaven,  which  a  woman  took 

kavenecl ''''  ^  of  meal,  till  the  whole  was 

analogies  just  given,  Matthew  adds  one 
hollowed  fiom  domestic  life  and  female  industiy,  as  if  to  leave  no  part 
otevei} -day  experience  unemployed  in  the  elucidation  and  enforcement 
of  leligioiis  truth.  ^  ihe  introductory  formula  is  like  that  in  vs.  24.  3l. 
without  chronological  specification.  Nor  can  any  inference  be  drawn 
rorn  le  lesemblance  of  this  parable  to  that  beforh  it,  since  this  very 
smiilarity  may  possibly  have  led  to  their  juxtaposition  without  any 
chronological  connection.  The  resemblance  lies  in  the  essential  mean¬ 
ing,  w  rich  IS  evidently  that  of  an  expansive  spread  or  diffusion,  corre¬ 
sponding  to  the  growth  of  the  mustard-plant.  The  figure  here  is  that 
yeast,  or  sour  dough,  with  its  familiar  efiect  upon  the  meal 
ppeaded.  The  measure  mentioned  is  described  by  the 
labbins  as  the  third  part  of  an  ephah,  and  by  Jerome,  in  his  comment 
on  tins  passage,  as  equivalent  to  one  modius  or  Roman  bushel  (see 
above,  on  5,  15)  and  a  half.  The  precise  capacity  is  unimportant  to 
the  meaning  of  the  passage,  though  it  may  be  worthy  of  remark,  that 
three  seahs  or  an  ephah  would  seem  to  have  been  a  customary  quan¬ 
tity  m  houseliold  baking.  (See  Gen.  18,  6.  Judges  6,19.)  The  word 
translated  meal  is  used  in  the  classics  to  denote  wheat  flour,  as  distin¬ 
guished  from  ground  barley  or  other  inferior  grains.  TJniil  determines 
nothing  as  to  the  rapidity  or  slowness  of  the  process,  which  is  there¬ 
fore  not  included  in  the  import  of  the  parable,  or  left  to  be  supplied  by 
the  experience  of  the  hearers.  The  icliole  teas  (or  it  loas  all)  leadened., 
or  retaining  the  Greek  collocation,  it  icas  leavened  all  {of  it)^  or 
leavened  whollj^  This  complete  difiusion  of  the  leaven,  rather  than 
the  time  required  for  the  process,  seems  to  be  the  main  point  in  the 
parable.  There  is  still  an  interesting  question  with  respect  to  it,  and 
one  which  admits  of  being  plausibly  argued  upon  both  sides.  Does 
this  parable,  like  the  one  before  it,  set  forth  the  diffusive  quality  or 
tendency  of  truth,  and  of  the  true  religion,  or  the  corresponding  char¬ 
acter  of  falsehood  and  corruption  ?  In  favour  of  the  former  supposition 
is  the  obvious  presumption  springing  from  the  similarity  of  form,  the 
want  of  any  intimation  to  the  contrary,  the  sameness  of  the  prefatory 
formula,  and  chiefly  the  express  use  of  the  leaven  to  symbolize  or  rep¬ 
resent  “  the  kingdom  of  heaven.”  The  two  first  of  these  reasons  being 
negative,  may  be  neutralized  of  course  by  positive  considerations  on  the 
other  side.  The  others,  although  strong,  are  not  entirely  conclusive,  since 
the  ‘‘  kingdom  of  heaven  ”  may  be  used,  as  in  the  Tares,  to  represent  the 
whole  state  of  the  church  in  its  present  mixed  and  militant  condition.  In 
favour  of  the  other  explanation  is  the  very  strong  fact,  that  leaven  always 
in  the  Scriptures  elsewhere  (except  Lev.  23,  17),  is  a  figure  for  corrup¬ 
tion,  either  in  doctrine  or  affection.  This  usage,  probably  arising  from 
the  ph3^sical  fact  that  fermentation  is  incipient  putrefaction,  may  be 

16’" 


370 


MATTHEW  13,33.34. 

traced  in  the  exclusion  of  all  leaven  from  the  passover  and  other  sacri¬ 
ficial  rites  of  the  Mosaic  law,  as  well  as  in  its  figurative  application 
both  by  Christ  and  Paul.  (See  below,  16,  6.  and  compare  Ex.  12,  15. 
Lev.  2,  11.  1  Cor,  5,  6-8.  Gal.  5,  9.)  The  usage  is  indeed  so  uniform 
and  easily  accounted  for  from  rational  considerations,  that  nothing  can 
outweigh  it  but  the  equally  uniform  judgment  of  interpreters  and 
readers  in  all  ages  that  this  is  an  exception  to  the  general  rule,  and 
that  leaven,  in  this  one  place  and  its  parallel  (Luke  13,  21),  denotes 
thg  spreading  or  dilfusive  quality  of  truth  and  of  the  true  religion. 
This  alleged  exception  to  so  uniform  an  usage  may  seem  less  improb¬ 
able  if  stated  thus,  that  leaven,  even  in  the  other  cases,  is  an  emblem, 
not  directly  of  corruption,  but  of  fermentation  and  diffusion,  and  that 
this,  which  happens  to  be  elsewhere  applied  only  to  false  doctrine,  or  ^ 
hypocrisy,  or  sin  in  general,  is  here  no  less  properly  applied  to  truth 
and  goodness.  The  essential  meaning  of  the  symbol  is  unvaried,  and 
the  only  difficulty  in  its  applications  is  the  very  slight  one  which 
arises  from  the  circumstance,  that  we  have  one  example  of  the  favour¬ 
able  sense  and  nearly  half  a  dozen  of  the  other.  If  this  be  so,  the 
usual  interpretation  is  entitled  to  the  preference,  as  the  safest  on  ac¬ 
count  of  its  antiquity  and  general  adoption,  while  intrinsically  it  is 
scarcely  if  at  all  less  eligible  than  the  other. 

34.  All  these  things  spake  Jesus  unto  the- multitude 
in  parables  ;  and  without  a  parable  spake  he  not  unto 
them  : 

As  these  words  do  not  necessarily  relate  to  what  was  spoken  upon 
any  one  occasion,  they  determine  nothing  as  to  the  precise  chronology 
of  what  precedes  them,  but  might  be  considered  as  descriptive  of  our 
Saviour’s  customary  method  of  instruction.  The  last  clause  must 
then  be  understood  as  meaning  that  he  did  not  at  the  same  time  em¬ 
ploy  both  the  methods  ;  or  in  other  words,  that  when  he  taught  in  par- 
ableS;  he  did  not  at  the  same  time  give  the  meaning  in  plain  terms  to 
the  promiscuous  multitudes,  but  only  to  his  own  disciples,  in  the  wide 
sense  of  the  term,  in  private  and  at  their  request,  of  which  we  have 
two  instances  in  this  one  chapter  (see  above,  on  v.  10,  and  below  on  v. 
36).  The  more  obvious  meaning  of  the  clause,  to  wit,  that  he  at  no 
time  taught  the  people  without  parables,  is  plainly  contradicted  by  the 
whole  course  of  the  history  before  and  afterwards.  There  is,  however, 
a  third  explanation,  which  avoids  this  discrepancy  no  less  than  the 
first,  and  is  perhaps  more  natural  and  easy,  while  it  certainly  agrees 
still  better  with  the  statement  in  v.  36,  considered  as  relating  to  the 
time  when  the  preceding  parables  were  uttered.  This  explanation 
takes  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  before  us  as  referring  only  to  that 
one  occasion,  and  is  recommended  by  its  readily  enabling  us  to  hold 
fast  the  chronological  as  well  as  topical  succession  in  this  chapter,  and 
at  the  same  time  to  account  for  the  crowding  of  so  many  parables 
in  one  discourse.  It  was  the  formal  opening  or  inauguration  of 
this  method  of  instruction.  See  above,  on  v.  3,  which  he,  there- 


MATTHEW  13,  34  35.  30. 


371 


fore,  exemplified  by  chosen  samples,  so  that  on  this  particular  oc¬ 
casion,  here  remarked  by  the  historian  as  a  deviation  from  his 
ordinary  practice,  “  he  spake  to  the  multitude  in  parables,  and  with¬ 
out  a  parable  spake  he  not  unto  them.” 


35.  That  it  might  he  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  hy 
the  prophet^  saying,  I  will  open  my  mouth  in  parables^; 
I  will  utter  things  which  have  been  kept  secret  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world. 

Here  again,  as  in  12,  17.  the  evangelist  pauses  in  his  narrative  to 
point  out  the  fulfilment  of  an  ancient  prophec}^.  The  one  here  cit¬ 
ed  is  the  second  verse  of  the  seventy-eighth  Psalm.  The  form  of 
the  quotation  implies  a  knowledge  of  the  Septuagint  version  with¬ 
out  a  necessary  dependance  on  it,  the  first  clause  being  taken  from 
it  word  for  word,  the  other  varying  in  every  word  except  the  prep¬ 
osition  (ano)  from.  As  the  sense  remains  the  same,  this  variation 
is  important  only  as  it  shows  the  independence  of  the  writer.  The 
plural  form,  ‘parables^  occurring  in  both  versions,  is  correct  as  rep¬ 
resenting  a  collective  singular.  The  parallel  term,  riddles^  translat¬ 
ed  in  the  Septuagint  problems^  is  paraphrased  by  Matthew,  hidden 
(things).  Instead  of  utter.,  he  employs  a  much  stronger  word,  orig¬ 
inally  meaning  to  vomit  or  belch  forth,  but  in  later  usage  fairly 
representing  the  Hebrew  verb,  which  means  to  pour  forth,  or  to 
cause  to  flow.  The  concluding  words,  of  old.,  are  strengthened  by 
the  Seventy,  from  the  beginning,  and  still  more  by  Matthew,  froin 
the  foundation  of  the  ID  orld,  but  without  a  material  change  of  mean¬ 
ing.  These  are  here  described  as  the  words  of  a  prophet,  of  the 
(well  known)  prophet,  i.  e.  Asaph,  who  is  named  as  the  author  in  the 
title  or  inscription  (Ps.  78,  1),  and  spoken  of  in  history  (2  Chron. 
29,  30)  as  a  seer,  an  ancient  synonyme  of  prophet  (1  Sam.  9,  9). 
They  seem  at  first  sight  inappropriate  as  an  introduction  to  a  psalm 
so  purely  historical ;  but  this  impression  is  removed  when  we  con¬ 
sider,  that  the  facts  there  stated  had  a  typical  significance  and 
bearing  on  the  advent  and  the  reign  of  the  Messiah,  which  is  also  the 
ground  of  what  is  here  said  by  jMatthew  as  to  their  fulfilment. 

36.  Then  Jesus  sent  the  multitude  away,  and  went 
into  the  house  :  and  his  disciples  came  unto  him,  saying, 
Declare  unto  us  the  parable  of  the  tares  of  the  field. 

Here,  for  the  first  time  since  the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  there  is 
a  distinct  indication  of  immediate  chronological  succession.  (See 
above,  on  vs.  24.  31.  33.  34.)  Then,  by  itself,  might  be  indefinitely 
used ;  but  the  succeeding  words  can  only  be  referred  to  the  multitudes 
mentioned  in  the  first  verse,  and  the  house  from  which  ho  there  came 
forth.  This  establishes  the  oneness  of  the  narrative  from  that  point, 
and  makes  it  in  a  high  degree  improbable,  if  not  impossible,  that 


372 


M  A  T  T  II  E  Yv  13,  36.  37.  38. 


any  of  the  intervening  parables  were  not  delivered  on  the  same  occa¬ 
sion.  (See  above,  on  v.  31.)  Sending  away^  or  letting  go,  permitting 
to  depart.  The  house^  most  probably  the  one  where  he  resided  at  Ca¬ 
pernaum,  perhaps  that  of  Simon  and  Andrew.  (See  above,  on  8, 14. 
and  compare  Mark  1,  29.)  Jlis  disciples^  not  the  twelve  alone,  but 
“  they  that  were  about  him  with  the  twelve  ”  (Mark  4,  10),  i.  e.  such 
as  acknowledged  his  authority  and  owned  him  as  a  teacher  come  from 
God  (John  3,  2).  As  this  was  not  an  organized  body,  it  might  here 
be  represented  by  a  few,  who  in  addition  to  the  twelve  continued  with 
him,  and  presented  this  request  for  further  explanation.  Declare,  liter¬ 
ally,  phrase  ((jypdcrov),  i.  e.  express  in  other  words,  that  we  may  under¬ 
stand  it. 

37.  He  answered  and  said  unto  them,  He  that  soweth 
the  good  seed  is  the  Son  of  man  ; 

We  have  here  a  second  model  of  parabolical  interpretation  from  the 
lips  of  Christ  himself,  and  like  the  former  (see  above  on  vs.  18-28), 
remarkable  for  clearness,  brevit}’,  and  freedom  from  those  fanciful  in¬ 
ventions  and  infinitesimal  minutim,  which  disfigure  many  uninspired 
expositions  of  these  matchless  lessons.  Point  by  point,  with  one  ex¬ 
ception  to  be  noticed  presently,  he  goes  through  the  parable,  explain¬ 
ing  its  essential  features  in  the  fewest  words  possible.  The  {one)  sowing 
the  good  seed,  as  related  in  v.  24.  The  Son  of  Man,  our  Lord  himself 
as  the  Messiah,  in  his  state  of  humiliation.  (See  above,  on  8,  20.  10, 
23.  11, 19.  12,  8.  32.  40.)  This  agrees  with  the  past  tense  in  v.  24, 
implying  that  the  mixture  represented  in  the  parable  had  already  taken 
place. 

38.  The  field  is  the  world  ;  the  good  seed  are  the 
children  of  the  kingdom  ;  hut  the  tares  are  the  children 
of  the  wicked  (one)  ; 

The  field,  in  which  the  wheat  and  tares  were  both  sown  (vs.  24. 
25),  is  the  world,  the  present  state  of  things,  in  the  midst  of  which  the 
church  was  to  be  planted.  An  apostle,  writing  at  a  later  period,  might 
have  said  the  Church  ;  but  this  was  not  yet  organized  upon  its  Chris¬ 
tian  basis,  and  is  only  mentioned  rarely  by  prolepsis  or  anticipation. 
(See  below,  on  16,  18.  18,  17,  the  only  two  examples  of  the  word 
cKKXparia  in  the  Gospels.)  The  childr-en  of  the  Miigdom,  its  possessors, 
not  by  mere  hereditary  claim  (as  in  8, 12),  but  by  divine  right  and  the 
grace  of  God.  These  are  identified  with  the  good  seed,  not  as  in  the 
parable  of  the  sower  (see  above,  on  v.  19),  by  a  disregard  of  nice  pre¬ 
cision  in  the  treatment  of  the  figures,  but  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
terms,  the  good  seed  being  really  the  emblem  of  the  righteous.  The 
loiclced  {one),  the  name  applied  in  v.  19  to  the  Devil.  His  children, 
those  partaking  of  his  nature,  and  belonging  to  him,  as  the  seed  of  the 
serpent  (see  above,  on  3,7.  12,34),  and  destined  to  be  sharers  in  his 
punishment  (see  below,  on  25,  41). 


373 


MATTHEW  13,39. 

39.  The  enemy  that  sowed  them  is  the  devil ;  the 
harvest  is  the  end  of  the  world  ;  and  the  reapers  are  the 
angels. 

The  enemy  that  sowed,  them,  as  related  in  the  parable  (v.  25).  The 
Devil.,  slanderer,  and  false  accuser  (see  above,  on  4,  1),  just  described 
by  his  moral  quality  as  the  Evil  or  Wicked  One,  i.  e.  pre-eminently 
wicked  in  himself,  and  in  some  sense  the  author  of  all  sin  in  others. 
The  act  here  ascribed  to  him  is  that  of  introducing  his  own  children 
and  dependents  among  the  children  of  the  kingdom,  which  must 
be  within  the  kingdom,  i.  e.  the  pale  of  the  visible  church.  This 
extraordinary  juxtaposition  is  among  the  most  remarkable  condi¬ 
tions  of  the  church  in  this  world,  and  naturally  prompts  the 
inquiry  why  it  is  permitted.  And  jmt  it  is  precisely  here  that 
our  Saviour’s  exposition  passes  over  a  prominent  feature  of  the 
parable,  and  leaves  it  unexplained.  The  proposition  of  the  servants  to 
destroy  the  tares,  and  the  refusal  of  the  master,  with  the  reason  for  it, 
are  omitted  in  the  commentary  before  us.  We  are,  therefore,  under  the 
necessity  of  reasoning  from  analog}^  and  trying  to  explain  this  passage 
for  ourselves,  upon  the  principles  propounded  and  exemplified  by 
Christ  himself.  If  the  field  is  the  world,  or  the  present  mixed  condi¬ 
tion  of  the  chui’ch,  and  if  the  good  and  bad  seed  are  the  children  of  the 
kingdom  and  the  wicked  one  respectively,  the  meaning  of  the  dialogue 
in  vs.  28-30  would  appear  to  be,  that  such  a  mixture  of  the  righteous 
and  the  wicked  in  society  is  not  to  be  entirely  avoided,  and  that  any 
violent  attempt  at  separation  would  be  worse  in  its  effects  than  their 
continued  coexistence.  The  bearing  of  this  doctrine  upon  church  dis¬ 
cipline  has  been  a  subject  of  dispute  for  ages.  In  the  Church  of  Koine 
it  has  been  made  a  question  whether  the  tares  and  the  children  of  the 
wicked  one  specifically  mean  heretics,  and  if  so,  whether  their  excision 
is  forbidden  in  this  passage.  The  most  moderate  have  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  heresy  is  only  one  of  many  evils  here  denoted,  and  that 
excommunicpffion  is  permitted  where  the  wheat  and  tares  are  easily 
distinguished,  the  very  thing  which  the  parable  itself  represents  as  im¬ 
possible.  Among  Protestants  the  question  has  been  agitated,  how  far 
rigid  discijiline  is  reconcilable  with  what  is  here  taught.  Some  reject 
it  altogether,  but  the  more  judicious  and  considerate  have  always  held 
in  substance,  that  although  the  church  is  bound  to  aim  at  perfect 
puritjq  she  is  not  to  expect  it  as  the  product  of  mere  discipline,  nor 
ever  to  employ  brute  force,  ecclesiastical  or  secular,  in  order  to  secure 
it.  The  entire  separation  of  the  two  discordant  elements,  like  that  of 
the  wheat  and  tares  in  the  parable  before  us,  however  much  to  be  de¬ 
sired  and  sought,  is  not  to  be  expected  till  the  harvest.  This  our  Lord 
explains  to  bo  the  end  or  consummation  of  the  world,  not  the  word  so 
rendered  in  the  verse  preceding,  though  substantially  synonymous,  the 
one  relating  more  to  time,  the  other  to  place,  but  both  denoting  the 
present  or  existing  state  of  things,  including  the  material  universe  with 
i'ts  inhabitants  (koV/j,os),  and  time  with  its  great  divisions,  whether 
natural  or  moral  (aloiv).  Of  these  two  worlds,  or  of  the  world  in  these 


374 


MATTHEW  13.39.40.41. 


senses,  the  completion,  consummation,  winding  up,  denouement,  or 
catastrophe,  will  be  coincident  if  not  identical.  Then  comes  the  time 
of  clear  discrimination  and  of  final  separation  between  those  who  are 
now  mingled  in  society  and  even  joined  in  one  religious  profession. 
The  reapers  in  this  harrest,  or  the  agents  in  this  sifting  and  dividing 
process,  are  to  be,  and  are  already  by  divine  appointment  angels  (not 
the  angels),  i.  e.  spirits  of  a  higher  order,  and  exempt  from  all  the  com¬ 
plications  and  corruptions  of  our  mortal  state. 

40.  As  therefore  the  tares  are  gathered  and  burned  in 
the  fire  ;  so  shall  it  be  in  the  end  of  this  world. 

The  resemblance  is  to  hold  good,  not  only  with  respect  to  the  dis¬ 
crimination,  but  to  the  destruction  following.  The  correspondence 
here  between  the  sign  and  the  thing  signified  is  pointed  out  more  fully 
and  distinctly  in  the  form  of  a  regular  comparison.  Therefore^  since 
the  points  already  mentioned  correspond  with  such  exactness,  so  must 
the  remainder.  As  the  tares  are  gathered  and  burnt  withfire^  a  fact 
not  expressed  in  the  parable,  but  clearly  implied  in  the  command  to 
bind  them  into  bundles  for  that  purpose.  (See  above,  on  v.  30.)  8o, 

in  like  manner,  with  a  similar  coincidence  between  the  sign  and  the 
thing  signified.  It  shall  be  in  the  end  of  this  worlds  i.  e.  of  the  present 
creation  and  of  time,  not  only  as  to  what  has  been  already  mentioned, 
but  in  all  that  is  to  follow. 


41.  The  Son  of  man  shall  send  forth  his  angels,  and 
they  shall  gather  out  of  his  kingdom  all  things  that  offend, 
and  them  which  do  iniquity  ; 

The  sovereign  agent  in  this  final  process  is  the  Son  of  ]\Ian,  the 
same  despised  Messiah  who  was  now  addressing  them.  The  angels 
are  now  spoken  of  as  his  angels,  subject  to  his  orders  and  employed  in 
executing  his  commands.  Send  forth^  officially,  the  verb  from  which 
oyostle  is  derived.  (See  above,  on  10,  5.  16.  40.)  The  angels  are  on 
that  great  day  to  act  as  his  apostles,  his  official  aids  and  representa¬ 
tives.  Scandals^  the  noun  corresponding  to  the  verb  in  5,  29.  30.  11, 
6.  and  strictly  meaning  snares  or  stumbling-blocks,  whatever  one  falls 
into  or  falls  over  in  his  walk  through  life.  It  here  means  guilty 
causes  or  occasions  of  transgression  on  the  part  of  others.  That  the 
reference  is  to  persons,  though  the  noun  is  neuter,  may  be  gathered 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  no  other  objects  being  liable  to  punish¬ 
ment,  and  also  from  the  words  that  follow,  them  that  do  (those  doing) 
iniquity  or  lawlessness,  whatever  is  at  variance  with  the  law  as  the  ex¬ 
pression  of  the  will  of  God.  (See  above,  on  7,  33.)  The  only  question 
as  to  this  last  phrase  is  whether  it  describes  the  same  class  as  the 
word  before  it  or  another  quite  distinct.  If  the  former,  we  must  ren¬ 
der  the  words,  mahing  iniquity,  i.  e.  causing  and  promoting  it  in 
others,  and  the  and  must  indicate  a  simple  apposition,  nearly  equiva- 


MATTHEW  13,41-44. 


375 


lent  to  even,  as  it  sometimes  does.  If  we  adopt  the  other  and  more 
obvious  construction,  and  retains  its  usual  connective  force,  and  doing 
iniquity  means  'practising,^  committing  it,  as  something  different  from 
causing  it  in  others. 


42.  And  shall  cast  them  into  a  furnace  of  fire  :  there 
shall  be  wailing  and  gnashing  of  teeth. 

'This  is  a  simple  but  fearful  amplification  of  the  figure  in  v.  40.  The 
wicked,  like  the  tares,  are  to  be  cast  into  gj  furnace  of  fir  e^  i.  e.  heated, 
burning,  and  destructive.  As  the  form  of  the  threatening  is  here  sug¬ 
gested  by  the  burning  of  the  tares  at  the  harvest,  it  ma}’"  be  considered 
as  a  figure  for  the  most  intense,  intolerable  sufferings,  whether  caused  by 
material  fire  or  not.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  however,  that  the  fire  is 
here  mentioned,  not  in  the  parable  but  in  the  exposition,  and  that  if  the 
Son  of  Man,  the  world,  the  children  of  the  kingdom  and  the  wicked 
one,  the  end  of  the  world,  and  the  angels,  must  be  strictly  understood, 
it  would  be  arbitrary  and  confusing  to  suppose  this  one  figure  to  de¬ 
note  itself,  or  in  other  words,  that  the  figurative  fire  of  the  parable  (v. 
40)  means  a  figurative  fire  in  the  explanations  of  the  verse  before  us. 
But  even  granting  a  distinction,  as  in  all  the  other  cases,  we  have  still 
no  certain  intimation  of  what  is  meant  by  a  furnace  of  fire  at  the  end 
of  the  world,  beyond  the  vague  but  terrible  idea  of  unutterable 
torment,  which  is  further  expressed,  as  in  8, 12.  by  the  natural  tokens 
of  extreme  distress,  iveeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth. 

■  *• 

43.  Then  sliall  the  righteous  shine  forth  as  the  sun  in 
the  kinscdoni  of  their  Father.  Who  hath  ears  to  hear  let 
him  hear. 

Then^  when  the  wicked  have  been  thus  disposed  of,  shall  the  last 
stroke  of  the  parable  be  verified,  the  gathering  of  the  wheat  into  the 
barn  (v.  30).  This  is  here  expressed  by  another  figure,  as  the  only 
explanation  possible.  The  good  seed,  wheat,  or  children  of  the  king¬ 
dom,  are  here  called  the  righteous^  as  conformed  to  the  divine  will  and 
enjoying  his  favour.  Their  future  blessedness  and  glory  is  described 
as  a  resplendent  shining  like  that  of  the  sun,  which  may  include  not 
only  the  extreme  of  splendour  but  the  accessory  notion  of  imparting 
light  to.  others.'  This  glory  is  to  take  place  in  the  kingdom  of  their 
Father,  implying  their  hereditary  and  filial  claim  to  it,  and  possibly  the 
great  mysterious  truth  revealed  in  1  Cor.  15,  24,  that  when  all  Christ  s 
enemies  have  been  subdued,  ‘‘  he  shall  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  God, 
even  the  Father.” 


44.  Again,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  treas¬ 
ure  hid  in  a  field  ;  the  which  when  a  man  hath  found,  he 


876 


MATTHEW  13,44. 


liideth^  and  for  joy  thereof  goeth  and  selleth  all  that  he 
hath,  and  huyeth  that  field. 

The  preceding  verse  forms  so  solemn  a  conclusion  to  the  previous 
discourse,  that  one  is  tempted  to  regard  what  follows  as  a  sort  of  ap¬ 
pendix,  adding  certain  parables  not  uttered  on  the  same  occasion,  but 
appropriate  to  the  writer’s  purpose  of  exemplifying  this  peculiar  meth¬ 
od  of  instruction  as  practised  by  the  Saviour.  But  besides  the  gen¬ 
eral  presumption  in  favour  of  continuous  succession,  and  the  reasons 
which  have  been  already  given  for  his  uttering  so  many  parables  at 
once  (see  above,  on  vs.  34.  3^),  we  have  below  (in  v.  53)  another  state¬ 
ment,  that  can  only  be  referred  to  a  particular  occasion,  and  would 
seem  to  imply  the  continuity  and  chronological  arrangement  of  the 
intervening  matter.  It  is  safer,  therefore,  in  the  absence  of  all  counter¬ 
vailing  evidence,  to  hold  fast  to  the  natural  presumption  that  the 
parables  were  uttered  as  they  arc  recorded.  If  so,  it  will  follow  from 
V.  36,  that  those  remaining  were  addressed  to  the  disciples  in  the  house, 
after  the  explanation  of  the  Tares.  But  this  is  not  at  all  unnatural, 
and  is  even  rendered  highly  probable  by  an  expression  used  below  (in 
V.  51).  Again  does  not  mean  that  he  said  so  on  a  different  occasion, 
but  that  in  the  same  discourse,  he  thus  distinguished  the  successive 
parables,  in  order  to  avmid  confusing  the  disciples  by  so  rapid  an  enu¬ 
meration  (see  the  previous  use  of  the  same  adverb  in  4,  7.  8.  5,  33. 
and  compare  John  16,  16.  17.  19.  22-28.  Rom.  15,  10.  11.  12.  Heb. 
1,  5.  6.  2,  13.  4,  5.  7).  The  hingdom  of  heaxen  has  of  course  the 
same  sense  as  in  a,ll  the  previous  parables.  (See  above,  on  vs.  19.  24. 
31.  33.)  Is  lihe^  the  same  expression  that  is  used  in  the  parables  of 
Mustard  Seed  and  Leaven,  more  indefinite  than  that  in  the  Tares,  and 
not  confined  to  any  period  in  the  progress  of  the  kingdom.  What  is 
really  here  likened  to  a  hidden  treasure  is  the  personal  possession  and 
enjoyment  of  the  kingdom  with  its  honour^  and  immunities.  The 
form  of  expression  is  not  to  be  so  strictly  understood  as  in  v^  38,  but 
more  so  than  in  v.  19,  where  the  character  described  is  said  to  be 
himself  the  seed  sown.  Here,  again,  the  image  is  derived  from  the  ex¬ 
perience  of  common  life,  such  occasional  discoveries  of  treasure  being 
common  in  all  ages,  and  in  some  productive  of  insane  avidity,  indulged 
in  life-long  searches  after  gold.  It  is  not  improbable  that  in  the 
case  before  us  there  is  reference  to  some  recent  case  of  treasure-trove, 
familiar  to  Christ’s  hearers.  This  hypothesis  is  favoured  by  the 
form  of  the  original,  in  which  the  first  verb  is  an  aorist,  finding  hid 
{again),  referring  to  what  actually  happened  at  a  certain  time,  and 
thus  determining  the  verbs  that  follow  to  be  graphic  presents,  calling 
up  the  scene  as  actually  passing,  and  not  vague  descriptions  of  what 
men  usually  do  on  such  occasions.  The  case  described  is  that 
of  hidden  treasure  found,  and  then  concealed  again  in  order  to  secure 
it  until  legally  acquired  by  purchase.  The  immorality,  which  some 
have  seen  in  this  transaction,  even  if  real,  would  not  vitiate  the  para¬ 
ble,  which  makes  the  man  a  model  or  an  example  only  as  to  one  point, 
the  avidity  with  which  he  gave  up  all  in  order  to  secure  this  treasure. 


MATTHEW  13,  44-48. 


377  ' 


This  makes  the  application  easy,  even  in  the  absence  of  a  formal  expo¬ 
sition  by  our  Lord  himself,  to  the  eagerness  with  which  men  ought  to 
seek,  and  often  do  seek,  for  admission  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  (See 
above,  on  C,  33.)  This,  it  will  be  observed,  is  an  idea  not  directly  sug¬ 
gested  by  any  of  the  preceding  parables,  and  therefore  not  a  needless 
repetition,  but  an  instructive  variation  of  the  one  great  theme  ;  a  cir¬ 
cumstance  which  favours  the  opinion,  that  these  parables  were  all 
delivered  on  the  same  occasion. 

45.  Again,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  onto  a  mer¬ 
chantman,  seeking  goodly  pearls  : 

46.  Who,  when  he  had  found  one  pearl  of  great  price, 
went  and  sold  all  that  he  had,  and  bought  it. 

Again,  once  more,  to  give  3^11  still  another  sample  of  this  method 
of  instruction.  This  parable  resembles  that  before  it  ver}^  nearH,  and 
was  probably  suggested  by  it ;  but  they  differ  in  one  interesting  point, 
the  first  representing  the  fortuitous  discovery  of  treasure  without 
seeking  it,  the  second  the  success  of  a  professional  pearl-merchant  in 
discovering  a  sample  of  extraordinary  value,  after  which  he  does  pre¬ 
cisely  like  the  other,  i.  e.  gives  up  all  in  order  to  secure  this  single  ac¬ 
quisition.  While  they  both  agree  in  this  essential  point,  they  differ 
as  to  the  occasion,  which  admits  again  of  easy  application  to  men’s 
conduct  with  respect  to  religion  or  salvation,  when  convinced  of  its 
paramount  necessity  and  value,  one  apparently  by  accident  or  sudden 
revelation,  another  as  the  fruit  of  long-continued  search,  3’'et  both  alike 
renouncing  all  in  order  to  secure  it.  The  word  translated  merchant 
properly  denotes  a  shipper  or  importer,  but  in  later  Greek  a  trader  or 
trafficker  in  general,  either  of  wdiich  senses  would  be  here  appro¬ 
priate.* 

47.  Again,  the  Idngdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  net, 
that  was  cast  into  the  sea,  and  gathered  of  every  kind  : 

48.  Which,  when  it  was  full,  they  drew  to  shore,  and 
sat  down,  and  gathered  the  good  into  vessels,  but  cast  the 
bad  away. 

Our  Lord  concludes  the  series  of  his  parables  with  one  resembling 
that  of  the  Tares  in  meaning  and  design,  yet  differing  from  it  in  its 
images  or  figures,  which  are  borrowed  not  from  husbandry  but  fishing. 

'  *  The  combination,  merchant-man,  resembling  that  in  v.  28,  has  sometimes 
been  described  as  a  Hebrew  idiom,  but  is  found  in  the  purest  classics,  and  espe¬ 
cially  in  Homer,  e.  g.  auBpeonos  odlrrjs,  a  traveller,  Avhich  occurs  in  both  the 
Iliad  and  Odyssey. 


378  M  A  T  T  H  E  W  13,  48.  49.  50. 

This  circumstance  may  help  us  to  account  for  the  addition  of  a  parable 
so  similar  in  import  to  one  previously  uttered  on  the  same  occasion. 
The  mere  difference  of  figurative  dress  would  not  sufficiently  explain 
this,  since  the  others  might  as  easil}-  have  been  thus  varied.  But  he 
may  have  been  induced,  at  least  in  part,  by  a  desire  to  bring  home  this 
method  of  instruction  to  those  of  his  disciples  who  had  formerly  been 
fishermen ;  and  this  we  know  to  have  been  true  of  the  four  first  who 
were  called  to  actual  attendance  on  him  (see  above,  on  4,  18-22).  As 
they  were  to  be  fishers  of  men  (4,  19),  such  a  parable  as  this  would 
be  peculiarly  appropriate  to  their  position.  There  may  even  be  allu¬ 
sion  to  the  very  draught  of  fishes  which  accompanied  the  call  of  these 
disciples,  as  described  by  Luke  (5,  1-11),  which  would  account  for  the 
aorists  in  v.  48,  more  numerous  than  in  v.  44,  and  here  retained  in  the 
translation.  The  net  here  meant  is  a  large  seine  or  drag-net  thrown 
into  the  sea  and  then  drawn  to  the  shore.  E'oery  hind^  a  popular  hy¬ 
perbole  for  various  kinds,  not  only  bad  and  good  in  quality,  but  actu¬ 
ally  different  species.  The  scene  so  vividly  presented  in  v.  48,  is  no 
doubt  one  often  witnessed  on  the  shore  of  Genessaret  at  the  present 
day.  Bad^  literally  rotten  or  decaj^ed,  but  here  used  in  a  secondary 
wide  sense,  as  in  7,  17.  18.  12,  33  above,  where  it  is  applied  to  living 
and  productive  but  worthless  trees.  Vessels^  a  generic  term,  including 
baskets  and  all  other  receptacles  employed  for  such  a  purpose. 

49.  So  shall  it  he  at  the  end  of  the  v/orld  :  the  ancrels 
shall  come  forth,  and  sever  the  wicked  from  among  the 
just, 

50.  And  shall  cast  them  into  the  furnace  of  fire  :  there 
shall  he  wailing  and  gnashing  of  teeth. 

To  this  last  parable  our  Lord  seems  to  add  an  explanation ;  but  it 
is  only  by  repeating  that  appended  to  the  Tares  with  little  variation. 
The  first  clause  of  v.  49  is  the  last  clause  of  v.  40,  with  the  omission 
of  the  word  this  before  world  ;  and  even  this  slight  change  is  wanting 
in  the  Vatican  and  Beza  copies.  The  remainder  of  v.  49  is  onl}'  an 
abridgment  of  v.  41,  from  which  the  Son  of  IMan,  as  the  prime  agent, 
and  the  particular  description  of  the  wicked,  are  to  be  supplied.  The 
sending  of  the  angels  there  corresponds  to  their  going  forth  here  to 
execute  their  dread  commission.  The  only  new  trait  is  the  final  sepa¬ 
ration  of  the  wicked  from  among  the  righteous,  which  is  really  the 
very  burden  of  the  other  parable,  and  necessarily  implied  in  the  inter¬ 
pretation  of  it.  Y.  50  is  identical  with  v.  42,  thus  giving  to  the  pas¬ 
sage  a  rhythmical  or  strophical  unity  by  means  of  a  refrain  or  burden. 
This  not  only  finishes  the  proof  that  what  we  have  before  us  is  a  regu¬ 
lar  discourse  delivered  at  one  time,  but  restores  the  solemn  and  sonor¬ 
ous  close  which  seemed  to  have  been  lost  by  the  addition  of  the  last 
three  parables.  It  was  for  the  sake  of  this  conclusion  that  he  added  a 
brief  explanation  of  the  net,  and  not  because  it  needed  formal  exposi¬ 
tion  more  than  those  preceding  it. 


379 


MATTHEW  13,  51.  52.  53. 

51.  Jesus  saitli  unto  tliem,  Have  ye  understood  all 
these  things  ?  They  say  unto  him^  Yea,  Lord. 

This  verse  discloses  why  the  last  three  parables  were  added  after 
the  interpretation  of  the  Tares,  namely,  as  a  sort  of  exercise  or  lesson 
in  the  heavenly  art  which  he  was  teaching  his  disciples.  Having  given 
only  an  apparent  explanation  of  the  last,  and  none  at  all  of  the  two 
others,  he  now  asks  them  whether  they  had  understood  all  these  things, 
i.  e.  all  these  parables,  not  only  those  which  he  had  formally  expounded, 
but  the  others,  ah^,  and  they  answer  no  doubt  truly,  that  they  had, 
thus  showing  that  his  gracious  condescension  was  not  unavailing. 

52.  Then  said  he  unto  them,  Therefore  every  scribe, 
(which  is)  instructed  unto  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  is  like 
unto  a  man  (that  is)  a  householder,  which  hringeth  forth 
out  of  his  treasure  (things)  new  and  old. 

Having  taught  them,  both  by  precept  and  example,  the  divine  art 
of  parabolical  instruction,  and  ascertained,  by  the  inquiry  in  v.  51, 
that  the  experiment  had  been  successful,  he  now  intimates  the  use 
which  he  expected  them  to  make  of  all  such  acquisitions.  As  he  fed 
them,  so  they  wmre  to  feed  others,  with  the  bread  of  truth  and  saving 
knowledge,  and  for  this  end  were  to  lay  it  up  in  store  and  to  dispense 
it,  not  indiscriminately  or  at  random,  but  wdth  a  sound  discretion  and 
a  bountiful  economy,  consulting  the  necessities  of  every  person,  and 
the  exigencies  of  the  times  and  seasons,  so  as  to  provide  not  only  with 
abundance  but  variety  for  all  whom  they  wmre  called  to  serve.  All 
this  is  beautifully  set  forth  by  the  figure  of  a  Iwuseliolcler  (i.  e.  a  house¬ 
keeper  or  the  head  of  a  family)  drawing  from  his  treasury  (or  store¬ 
house)  things  both  new  and  old.  Such  a  housekeeper  must  be  every 
scribe^  i.  e.  every  ofiQcial  or  professional  expounder  of  the  Scriptures, 
wdio  is  (not  merely  instructed  but)  discipled^  introduced  as  a  disciple, 
into  the  hingdom  of  heaven^  or  the  church  of  the  new  dispensation, 
and  employed  there  as  a  teacher.  An  allusion  to  the  actual  conversion 
of  educated  Scribes,  as  already  past  or  future,  such  as  that  of  Paul, 
although  not  essential  to  our  Saviour’s  meaning,  may  appear  to  be 
suggested  by  his  speaking  of  one  who  is  a  scribe  already,  being  intro¬ 
duced  into  the  church  as  a  disciple.  But  the  mere  order  of  the  words 
does  not  forbid  the  supposition  that  the  discipleship  precedes  the 
scribeship.  There  is  no  one  sentence  in  the  Bible  more  instructive  as 
to  the  duties  of  the  ministry  considered  as  a  teaching  otfice.  It  is  con¬ 
nected  by  a  therefore^  or  for  this  {cause)^  with  the  previous  context,  as 
the  practical  improvement  of  the  whole  preceding  lesson  in  the  art  of 
parabolical  instruction. 

53.  And  it  came  to  pass,  (that)  when  Jesus  had  fin-  ' 
ished  these  parables,  he  departed  thence. 


380 


MATTHEW  13,53.54. 


This  verse  affords  a  final  proof  that  the  preceding  parables  were 
actually  uttered  upon  one  occasion,  by  referring  to  them  all  collectively 
(these  ])aTable^  without  distinction  or  discrimination ;  by  spying  that 
he  finished  them,  in  Greek  an  aorist  referring  to  some  one  time  ;  and 
by  adding  that  he  then  departed  thence^  implying  unity  of  place  also. 
Here  the  chapter  should  have  ended,  as  already  too  long  for  conveni¬ 
ence  but  containing  one  complete  and  undivided  context,  all  relating  to 
our  Saviour’s  parables,  and  forming  a  fine  counterpart  or  supplement 
to  the  previous  example  of  his  teaching  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
By  some  inexplicable  error  of  judgment,  the  divider  of  the  text  gra¬ 
tuitously  added  to  the  length  of  this  division,  and  destroyed  its  unity 
of  subject,  by  subjoining  an  occurrence  which  has  no  direct  connection 
with  what  goes  before. 


54.  And  when  he  was  come  into  his  own  country,  he 
taught  them  in  their  synagogue,  insomuch  that  they  were 
astonished,  and  said,  Whence  hath  this  (man)  this  wis¬ 
dom,  and  (these)  mighty  wmrks  ? 

This  verse  is  not  to  be  read  as  a  direct  continuation  of  the  one 
before  it,  although  actually  printed  so  in  some  editions.  The  and  at 
the  beginning  is  the  particle  used  even  in  the  opening  of  books  in  the 
Old  Testament  (see  above,  on  9,  2),  and,  therefore,  can  prove  nothing  as 
to  the  connection  here.  And  corning^  as  in  many  other  cases,  means 
no  more  than  coming  once,  or  at  a  certain  tim6  not  specified.  There 
is,  therefore,  no  discrepancy  between  this  narrative  and  Mark’s  (6, 1-6), 
which  gives  the  following  occurrence  in  immediate  succession  to  the 
raising  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  which  Matthew  has  recorded  long 
before  (see  above,  on  9,  18-26).  The  truth  is,  that  neither  of  the  two 
evangelists  asserts  an  immediate  consecution  of  events,  but  only,  at  the 
most,  that  one  happened  after  the  other,  without  saying  that  no  other 
event  intervened.  It  is  only  by  neglecting  this  distinction  that  most 
charges  of  discrepancy  between  the  Gospels  can  be  rendered  even 
plausible.  Not  the  least  striking  and  affecting  part  of  Christ’s  humili¬ 
ation  was  the  treatment  which  he  met  wTth  from  his  nearest  friends, 
or  those  who  might  have  been  supposed  to  be  such,  either  from  natural 
relationship  or  from  long  association  and  acquaintance.  We  have 
already  met  with  several  indications  of  imperfect  faith  and  narrow 
views  upon  the  part  of  such ;  but  the  history  of  his  mission  would 
have  been  defective  without  a  more  detailed  account  of  one  extraordinary 
scene,  in  which  the  same  thing  took  place  on  a  larger  scale  and  still 
more  publicly.  This  was  his  reception  on  returning  to  the  place  where 
he  had  spent  his  childhood,  and  from  which  he  came  to  be  baptized  in  Jor¬ 
dan  (see  above,  on  2,  23).  The  precise  chronology  of  this  transaction  is  of 
little  moment,  except  as  involved  in  the  question  of  its  identity  with 
that  recorded  in  a  different  connection  by  Luke  (4,  16-31).  As  the 
scene  of  both  is  Nazareth,  and  the  principal  incident  in  both  our  Lord’s 


MATTHEW  13,54. 


381 


rejection  by  his  old  acquaintances  and  neighbours  there,  the  first  pre¬ 
sumption  is,  of  course,  in  favour  of  their  sameness.  But  this  presump¬ 
tion  of  identity,  is  happily  removed  by  Matthew,  who  affords  a 
parallel  to  both  the  others  in  very  different  connections,  thus  establish¬ 
ing  the  fact  of  their  diversity.  Luke’s  account  of  the  affair  at  Naza¬ 
reth  closes  (4,  31)  with  a  statement  that  he  went  thence  to  Capernaum, 
another  town  of  Galilee,  which  formal  and  particular  description  shows 
that  he  is  speaking  of  our  Lord’s  removal  to  that  place  as  the  appointed 
centre  of  his  future  operations.  Now  this  same  removal  is  recorded 
with  more  brevity  by  Matthew,  in  immediate  connection  with  our 
Lord’s  withdrawing  from  Judea  into  Galilee  on  John’s  imprisonment 
(see  above,  on  4,  12.  13).  But  here,  much  later  in  his  narrative,  he 
records  a  visit  and  rejection  of  our  Lord  at  Nazareth,  in  terms  almost 
identical  with  those  of  Mark  (0,  1-6).  It  was,  therefore,  a  second 
occurrence  of  the  same  kind,  which  is  so  far  from  being  in  itself  im¬ 
probable,  that  it  would  have  been  strange  and  out  of  keeping  with  the 
whole  tenor  of  the  Saviour’s  conduct,  if  in  the  course  of  his  perpetual 
circuits  through  all  Galilee,  he  never  had  revisited  his  old  home  and 
renewed  the  invitations  which  the  .people  there  had  once  rejected. 
Luke’s  silence  in  relation  to  this  second  visit  is  explained  by  his  par¬ 
ticular  account  of  the  first,  whereas  Matthew,  having  merely  noted  the 
removal,  without  any  indication  of  the  reasons,  could  describe  the 
second  visit  without  irksome  repetition.  The  different  connection  in 
which  Mark  and  Matthew  introduce  this  narrative  is  unimportant,  as 
the  mere  chronology  was  nothing  to  their  purpose  of  exemplifying  the 
reception  and  effect  of  our  Lord’s  ministry  in  various  cases.  His 
country  (fatherland,  Trarpls  from  7rarr?p).  not  in  the  wide  sense  now 
attached  to  this  term,  but  in  that  of  native  place,  ancestral  residence. 
This  description  applied  elsewhere  (John  4,  46)  to  all  Galilee,  as  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  Judea,  is  here  used,  with  equal  propriety,  to  distinguish 
one  town  of  Galilee  from  another.  In  the  same  sense  that  Galilee 
was  his  native  province,  Nazareth  was  his  native  town;  for  though 
not  actually  born  in  either,  his  parents  (Luke  2,  27.  41)  had  resided 
there  before  his  birth  (Luke  1,  26.  27.  2,  4),  and  he  had  been  brought 
up  there  from  his  inflincy  (2,  23.  Luke  2,  51.  52),  so  that  he  was  uni¬ 
versally  regarded  as  a  Galilean  and  a  Nazarene.  In  tJieir  synagogue^ 
or  stated  meeting  for  religious  worship,  the  Greek  woixl,  like  its  Eng¬ 
lish  equivalent  and  several  others,  such  as  church,  court^  school^  being 
sometimes,  but  not  necessarily  or  alwa3xs,  transferred  to  the  place  and 
even  to  the  building.  For  a  clear  view  of  this  natural  transition,  com¬ 
pare  Luke  7,  5,  where  it  could  not  be  the  meeting  that  was  built,  with 
Acts  13,  43.  where  it  could  not  be  the  building  that  was  broken  up. 
AYe  find  here  exemplified  two  of  our  Lord’s  habits,  that  of  personal 
attendance  on  the  synagogue  worship,  and  that  of  official  or  authorita¬ 
tive  teaching  upon  such  occasions.  This  was  allowed  partly  in 
accordance  with  a  customary  license  of  instruction,  not  entirely  un- 
'  known  among  the  modern  Jews,  but  chiefly  on  account  of  Christ’s 
miraculous  credentials  as  a  teacher  come  from  God  and  recognized  as 
such  by  other  teachers  even  of  the  highest  rank  when  free  from  party- 


382 


M  A  T  T  II  E  W  13,  54.  55.  56. 

spirit  and  malignant  prepossession.  So  that  they  were  struclc  (with  wonder 
or  amazement),  the  same  phrase  and  descriptive  of  the  same  effect  as 
that  recorded  in  7,  28.  but  very  different  as  to  the  conclusion  drawn 
from  it.  For  in  the  former  case  it  led  the  hearers  to  contrast  him  as  a 
teacher  with  the  Scribes  ver}^  much  to  his  advantage,  while  in  this  his 
old  acquaintances  compare  his  miracles  and  teachings  with  his  humble 
origin  and  early  residence  among  themselves,  as  a  pretext  for  disparag¬ 
ing  if  not  rejecting  his  pretensions.  This  unfriendly  prepossession  is 
expressed  indirectly  by  their  sneering  questions.  Whence  to  this  (one) 
this  iDisdom^  and  these  fowers^  thereby  acknowledging  his  inspiration, 
but  not  without  a  sneer  at  his  wisdom  as  belonging  to  another  rather 
than  himself.  Nor  do  they  venture  to  deny  his  miracles,  but  by 
wondering  at  them  really  bear  witness  to  them.  This  is  onl}^  one  of 
many  proofs  that  the  reality  of  Christ’s  miraculous  performances 
was  never  called  in  question  either  by  his  unbelieving  friends  or  by 
his  most  malignant  enemies  (see  above,  on  12,  24).  That  this  admis¬ 
sion  left  them  inexcusable  both  intellectually  and  morally  for  not 
receiving  Jesus  as  the  true  Messiah,  far  from  proving  that  they  could 
not  thus  have  spoken,  only  shows  that  their  affections,  envy,  jealous3q 
and  malice,  were  too  strong  for  their  rational  convictions,  so  that  in 
the  very  act  of  wondering  at  the  proofs  of  his  divine  legation,  they 
rejected  and  denied  it.  This  inconsistency,  instead  of  being  “  unpsy- 
chological”  or  contradicted  by  the  laws  of  human  nature,  is  continually 
verified  in  everj-  day’s  experience,  contributing  with  many  other  proofs 
to  show  the  irrationality  of  unbolief  and  sin  in  general. 

55.  Is  not  this  the  carpenter's  son  ?  is  not  his  mother 
called  Mary  ?  and  his  brethren.  James,  and  Joses,  and 
Simon,  and  Jndas  ? 

56.  And  his  sisters,  are  they  not  all  with  ns  ? 
Whence  then  hath  this  (man)  all  these  things  ? 

The  general  expression  of  contemptuous  incredulity  is  followed  by 
a  still  more  invidious  allusion  to  his  connections  and  associations, 
equivalent  to  saying,  ‘we  know  all  about  this  boasted  wonder-worker 
and  instructor  who  and  what  he  is,  and  whence  he  drew  his  origin, 
that  IS,  among  ourselves,  to  whom  he  now  assumes  such  vast  superi- 
orit}^’  This  is  the  language  not  of  reason  but  of  passion,  since  the 
circumstances  mentioned  only  served  to  enhance  the  proof  of  that 
superiority  which  they  repined  at,  though  they  could  not  question  or 
deny  it.  Is  not  this  the  carpenter'' s  son?  The  Greek  word  sometimes 
means  an  artisan  or  artificer  in  general,  which  some  lexicographers 
consider  its  original  import  as  indicated  by  its  etymology  (connecting 
it  with  reyt//;,  art)^  and  by  its  combination  with  the  names  of  certain 
metals,  to  denote  those  who  are  constantly  employed  about  them. 
Others  explain  this  as  a  mere  occasional  extension  of  the  usual  and 


M  A  T  T  PI  E  W  13,  56. 


383 


strict  sense,  which  is  that  of  any  workman  in  wood,  and  still  more 
specifically,  a  carpenter  or  joiner,  which  an  uniform  tradition  represents 
as  Joseph’s  occupation.  It  is  not  here  spoken  of  as  even  a  compara¬ 
tively  mean  employment,  that  of  building  having  always  been  regarded 
as  among  the  most  respectable  and  even  intellectual  of  manual  occupa¬ 
tions.  There  was  no  intention,  on  the  part  of  those  here  speaking,  to 
put  Jesus  lower  than  themselves,  but  simply  on  a  level  with 
them.  What  they  tacitly  repudiate  is  not  his  claim  to  be  their  equal, 
but  their  better  or  superior  in  an  infinite  degree.  Tliis  pretension, 
though  attested  by  acknowledged  miracle  and  inspiration,  they  endeav¬ 
our,  in  a  natural  but  foolish  manner,  to  invalidate  by  urging  his 
original  equality  in  rank  and  occupation  with  themselves.  Or  rather 
it  is  not  an  argumentative  objection,  but  a  mere  expression  of  surprise, 
like  that  which  would  be  felt,  though  in  a  less  degree,  in  any  obscure 
neighbourhood,  at  the  appearance  of  an  old  acquaintance  in  the  new 
condition  of  a  rich  man  or  a  nobleman.  The  immemorial  dispute  as  to 
the  brothers  of  the  Lord  has  been  already  mentioned  (see  above,  on  12, 
46).  Those  who  interpret  that  expression  as  denoting  brothers  in  the 
strict  sense,  i.  e.  sons  of  the  same  mother  (fratres  uterinos)^  lay  great 
stress  upon  the  passage  now  before  us  and  its  parallel  in  Mark  16,  3. 
But  even  taken  in  the  strictest  sense  it  only  proves  that  these  were 
sons  of  Joseph,  not  necessarily  bj^  Mar}^  but  perhaps  by  a  former 
marriage,  a  traditional  interpretation  running  back  into  remote  anti¬ 
quity.  Others  insist  upon  the  wide  use  of  hrotJier,  in  the  oriental 
idiom  and  in  Scripture,  to  denote  almost  any  near  relation,  whether 
natural  or  moral,  such  as  that  of  fellow-men,  otherwise  called  neigh¬ 
bours  (5,  22),  that  of  friends  and  associates  (5,  47),  that  of  fellow-Jews 
(Acts  2,  29),  that  of  fellow-christians  (Acts  1,  16),  that  of  fellow-min¬ 
isters  (1  Cor.  1,  1).  A  w^ord  admitting  of  such  various  applications 
cannot  of  itself  determine  which  is  meant  in  any  given  case.  Nor  is 
there  any  principle  or  general  law  of  language  which  forbids  our  giving 
to  the  term  as  here  used  the  same  meaning  that  it  obviously  has  in 
Gen.  13,  8.  14,  14.  16.  that  of  a  near  relative  or  kinsman.  The  pre¬ 
sumption,  however,  here  and  elsewhere,  is  in  favour  of  the  strict  con¬ 
struction  ;  nor  would  any  have  doubted  that  the  brothers  of  Christ 
were  the  sons  of  Mary,  but  for  certain  adventitious  and  collateral 
objections  to  that  obvious  interpretation.  These  are  chiefly  two,  the 
one  of  great  antiquity,  the  other  of  more  recent  date.  The  first  is  a 
repugnance  to  admit  that  Mary  was  the  mother  of  any  but  of  Christ 
himself.  This  repugnance,  although  found  in  connection  with  many 
superstitious  notions  in  the  Church  of  Home,  is  not  confined  to  it. 
Not  only  do  the  symbols  or  standards  of  the  Lutheran  and  of  some 
Ileforrned  churches  teach  the  perpetual  virginity  of  Mary  as  an  article 
of  faith,  but  multitudes  of  Protestant  divines  and  others,  independently 
of  all  creeds  and  confessions,  have  believed,  or  rather  felt,  that  the 
selection  of  a  woman  to  be  the  mother  of  the  Lord,  carries  with  it  as  a 
necessary  implication  that  no  others  could  sustain  the  same  relation 
to  her ;  and  that  the  selection  of  a  virgin  still  more  necessarily  iniplied 
that  she  was  to  continue  so;  for  if  there  be  nothing  in  the  birth  of 


384 


MATTHEW  13,  5G. 

younger  children  inconsistent  with  her  maternal  relation  to  the  Saviour, 
why  should  there  be  any  such  repugnance  in  the  birth  of  older  children 
likewise?  If  for  any  reason,  whether  known  to  us  or  not,  it  was 
necessary  that  the  mother  of  our  Lord  should  be  a  virgin  when  she 
bore  him,  what  is  there  absurd  or  superstitious  in  assuming  as  a  part 
of  the  divine  plan  that  she  should  remain  a  virgin  till  her  death  ?  If. 
on  the  other  hand,  tliere  be  no  real  incongruity  in  holding  that  the 
mother  of  our  Lord  was  afterwards  an  ordinary  wife  and  parent,  what 
incongruity  would  there  have  been  in  putting  this  extraordinary  hon¬ 
our  on  the  married  state,  by  choosing  one  who  was  already  in  the 
ordinary  sense  a  wife  and  mother  ?  The  question  is  not  why  it  did 
not  please  God  thus  to  order  it,  with  which  we  have  no  right  to  inter¬ 
meddle,  but  why  the  same  minds  which  regard  the  perpetual  virginity 
of  Mary  as  a  superstition,  shrink  with  equal  superstition  from  the  bare 
suggestion  that  Christ  might  have  been  born  of  any  but  a  virgin.  The 
same  feeling  which  revolts  from  one  hypothesis  in  some  revolts  fi'om 
both  hypotheses  in  others,  and  the  difference  between  them,  as  to  this 
repugnance,  is  reduced  to  that  of  one  and  two,  before  and  after,  or 
at  most  to  that  of  a  consistent  uniformity  and  arbitrary  variation. 
After  all,  it  is  not  so  much  a  matter  of  reason  or  of  faith  as  of  taste 
and  sensibility  ;  but  these  exert  a  potent  influence  on  all  interpreta¬ 
tion,  and  the  same  repugnance,  whether  rational  cr  merely  sentimental, 
which  led  fathers  and  reformers  to  deny  that  Christ  had  brothers  in 
the  ordinary  sense,  is  likely  to  produce  the  same  effect  on  multitudes  for¬ 
ever  until  the  question  has  received  some  new  and  unequivocal  solution. 
The  other  and  more  recent  ground  of  opposition  to  the  strict  sense  of 
brothers  in  the  case  before  us  is  the  theory,  by  some  connected  with  it, 
of  extraordinary  honours  paid  to  one  of  these  uterine  brethren  as 
such,  though  not  one  of  the  twelve  apostles,  i.  e.  James  the  brother  of 
the  Lord,  whom  Paul  groups  with  John  and  Peter  as  a  pillar  of  the 
church,  and  even  names  him  first  in  the  enumeration,  which  is  natural 
enough  if  he  was  one  of  the  apostles,  and  the  one  who  speciall}'’  pre¬ 
sided  in  the  chui'ch  at  Jerusalem  ;  but  if  (as  many  now  maintain)  ho 
was  one  of  the  Saviour’s  unbelieving  brethren  (John  7,  5),  converted 
by  our  Lord’s  appearance  to  him  after  his  resurrection  (1  Cor.  15,  7), 
and  then  placed  upon  a  level  with  the  twelve  on  account  of  his  relation¬ 
ship  to  Christ,  the  apostolical  prerogative  is  sensibly  impaired,  and  the 
door  thrown  open  for  an  endless  license  of  conjecture  as  to  the  men 
who  were  apostles,  althougli  not  so  dignified  by  Christ  himself.  An 
unwillingness  to  come  to  this  conclusion  has  undoubtedly  confirmed 
some  in  the  old  belief,  that  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  of  whom  Paul 
speaks,  was  James  the  Less  or  James  the  son  of  Alpheus,  at  once  an 
apostle  and  a  relative  of  Christ,  whether  ho  were  such  as  a  nephew 
of  the  Virgin  Mary,  or  of  Joseph,  or  a  son  of  Joseph  by  a  former  mar- 
riaga.  The  additional  h3q')0thesis,  that  James  and  his  brothers  lived 
with  Joseph  after  the  decease  of  their  own  father,  is  not  a  necessary 
consequence  of  what  has  been  already  said,  but  merely  an  in^nious 
explanation  of  the  fact  that  these  brothers  of  Christ  appear  in  attend¬ 
ance  on  his  mother  as  members  of  her  household.  (See  above,  on  12, 


385 


MATTHEW  13,56.57. 

46.  and  compare  John  2.  12.  Acts  1,  14.)  In  favour  of  identifying 
James  the  brother  of  the  Lord  (Gal.  1,  19)  with  James  the  son  of 
Alpheus  (see  above,  on  10,  3.)  is  the  singular  coincidence  of  names 
between  the  lists  of  the  apostles  and  the  passage  now  before  us.  In 
all  we  find  a  James  and  a  Simon  near  together,  and  in  Luke’s  two 
catalogues  ^  Jude  or  Judas  (not  Iscariot),  making  three  names  com¬ 
mon  to  the  list  of  the  apostles  and  of  Christ’s  brothers.  This  may  no 
doubt  be  fortuitous,  the  rather  as  the  names  were  common,  and  the 
fourth  here  mentioned,  which  was  less  so,  does  not  appear  in  any  list 
of  the  apostles.  Still  on  most  minds  the  coincidence  will  have  some 
influence,  in  spite  of  the  objection  that  in  John  7,  5.  we  are  expressly 
told  that  his  brethern  did  not  believe  on  him.  But  if  brethren  means 
his  near  relations,  surely  some  of  them  might  be  apostles,  while  the 
rest  were  unbelievers,  oven  granting,  what  may  well  be  questioned, 
that  by  unbelief  in  John  7,  5.  we  are  to  understand  an  absolute  rejec¬ 
tion  of  his  claims  and  doctrines,  rather  than  a  weak  contracted  faith, 
with  which  he  seems  to  charge  his  mother  upon  one  occasion  (John  2, 
4),  and  the  twelve  on  many.  (See  above,  on  6,  30.  8,  26.  and  below, 
on  14,  31.  16,  8.)  His  sisters^  is  of  course  to  be  interpreted  according 
to  Ms  hrothers,  the  wide  and  narrow  senses  being  applicable  equally  to 
either  sex.  Here  with  us  (literally  at  us,  close  to  us),  i.  e.  still  resident 
at  Nazareth,  which  probably  remained  the  permanent  home  even  of 
his  mother. 

57.  And  they  were  offended  in  him.  But  Jesus  said 
unto  them,  A  prophet  is  not  without  honour,  save  in  his 
own  country,  and  in  his  own  house. 

Offended  in  him^  i.  e.  made  to  stumble,  or  without  a  figure  led  into 
sin  and  error  with  respect  to  him.  For  the  origin  and  meaning  of  the 
Greek  term  see  above,  on  v.  21.  Instead  of  resenting  this  reception  as 
a  personal  offence  and  insult,  which  it  certainly  was,  our  Lord  treats  it 
merely  as  a  single  instance  of  a  general  and  familiar  fact,  that  God’s 
most  highly  honoured  instruments  and  agents  are  not  only  liable  to  bo 
dishonoured  by  their  fellow-men,  but  to  be  least  respected  on  the 
part  of  those  who  know  them  best,  and  who  would  seem  to  be  particu¬ 
larly  bound  to  do  them  honour.  The  implied  reason  is  that  strangers 
judge  of  such  a  person  only  by  his  public  acts  or  his  official  conduct, 
while  his  friends  and  neighbours,  even  the  most  friendly,  have  their 
minds  so  occupied  with  minor  matters,  that  the  greater  are  obscured 
if  not  distorted  to  their  view.  It  is  like  looking  at  some  noble  struc¬ 
ture  from  a  distance  where  itself  alone  is  visible,  and  near  at  hand, 
wffiere  the  adjoining  houses  both  distract  the  eye  and  lower  the  main 
object ;  so  that  he  who  sees  the  most  in  one  sense  sees  the  least  in 
another.  This  familiar  lesson  of  experience,  and  as  such  reduced  to  a 
proverbial  form,  is  here  applied  especially  to  prophets,  either  because  it 
had  been  actually  verified  in  their  experience  more  than  that  of  others, 
or  because  it  was  our  Lord’s  prophetic  ministry  and  office  which  had 
been  so  contemptuously  treated  by  his  countrymen. 

17 


386 


MATTHEW  13,58. 

58.  And  he  did  not  many  mighty  works  there  because 
of  their  unbelief. 

The  sad  efiect  of  this  reception  was  the  paucity  of  miracles  at 
Nazareth,  compared  with  those  at  other  towns  of  Galilee,  particu- 
larl3'*at  Capernaum  (see  above,  on  8,  16.  9,  35).  The  people,  having  no 
faith  in  his  healing  power,  or  disdaining  to  receive  the  favours  of  one 
whom  they  knew  so  well,  and  were  so  unwilling  to  acknowledge  as 
superior,  did  not  present  themselves  as  in  other  places.  This  is  cer¬ 
tainly  more  probable  and  pleasing  than  the  supposition  that  our  Lord, 
in  this  case,  refused  what  he  seems  to  have  granted  m  all  others. 


CHAPTEE  XIV. 

The  next  incident  recorded  is  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist,  introduc¬ 
ed  to  explain  the  effect  of  our  Lord’s  miracles  on  Herod  (1-12),  and 
followed  by  a  new  and  most  stupendous  miracle,  the  feeding  of 
five  thousand  (13-21),  which  was  followed  in  its  turn  by  that  of 
walking  on  the  water  (22-27),  to  which  Matthew  adds  the  attempt 
of  Peter  to  do  the  same,  omitted  in  the  other  gospels  (28-32),  and  con¬ 
cludes  with  a  brief  statement  of  our  Lord’s  ensuing  visit  to  the  region 
of  Gennesaret,  and  of  the  miracles  performed  there  (33-36).  It  will 
be  perceived,  from  the  detailed  interpretation  of  this  chapter,  that  the 
chronological  arrangement  is  adhered  to  with  unusual  exactness,  and 
that  it  winds  up  what  may  be  regarded  as  the  first  great  division  of 
the  history,  the  second  opening  with  a  new  series  of  assaults,  and  a 
fresh  concourse  of  the  multitudes  to  see  and  hear  him. 

1.  At  that  time  Herod  the  tetrarcli  beard  of  the  fame 
of  Jesus. 

This  was  Herod  Antipas,  the  second  son  of  Herod  the  Great  (2,  1. 
Luke  1,  5),  and  bearing  the  abbreviated  name  of  his  grandfather,  Anti¬ 
pater,  the  Edomite  or  Idumean  who  had  been  the  minister  or  confiden¬ 
tial  counsellor  of  Hyreanus  II.,  the  last  of  the  IMaccabees  or  Hasmo- 
nean  Kings,  under  whom,  or  rather  through  whom,  Pompey  the  Great 
obtained  possession  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  virtually,  although  not 
ostensibly,  reduced  it  to  a  Roman  province.  Antipater,  however,  still 
continued  to  enjoy  the  favour  of  the  conquerors,  and  his  son  Herod, 
after  fleeing  from  the  countr}'-  to  escape  a  sentence  of  the  Sanhedrim, 
returned  in  triumph,  having  being  acknowledged  by  the  Senate,  and 
crowned  in  the  Capitol  as  king  of  the  Jews.  After  reigning  many 
years  as  a  vassal  of  the  empire,  he  bequeathed  his  kingdom  to  his  three 


387 


MATTHEW  14,1.2. 

sons  Archelaus,  Antipas,  and  Philip,  tho  first  of  whom  was  soon  dis¬ 
placed  by  Koman  governors,  while  both  the  others  reigned  much  longer 
as  tributary  sovereigns,  but  without  the  royal  title,  for  which  Augus¬ 
tus  substituted  that  of  tetrarch^  which  originally  signified  the  ruler  of 
a  fourth  part,  or  one  of  four  associated  rulers,  as  in  ancient  Galatia 
but  was  afterwards  applied  in  a  generic  sense  to  any  ruler,  and  espe¬ 
cially  to  tributary  kings,  immediately  dependent  on  the  Roman  em¬ 
peror.  Plence  Antipas,  though  usually  called  the  tetrarch  (14,  1. 
Luke  3,  1.  19.  9,  7.  Acts  13,  1),  is  by  Mark  repeatedly  described  as 
king^  which,  though  it  seems  at  first  sight  an  inaccuracy,  really  evinces 
his  exact  acquaintance  with  the  titular  rank  of  Herod,  both  in'eommon 
parlance  and  in  the  actual  arrangements  of  the  empire.  This  prince, 
whose  dominions  comprised  Galilee,  Samaria,  and  Perma,  resided 
usually  at  Tiberias,  a  place  from  which  the  sea  of  Galilee  derived  one 
of  its  names  (see  above,  on  4,  18),  but  which  is  not  itself  named  in  the 
New  Testament,  perhaps  because  our  Saviour  did  not  visit  it,  in  order 
to  avoid  precipitating  the  catastrophe  or  crisis  of  his  histor}'',  by  being 
brought  into  collision  with  the  court  or  person  of  this  wicked  ruler. 
But  although  they  had  not  met,  Herod,  as  might  have  been  expected, 
heard  the  fame^  literally,  (hearing)  of  Mm^  first  by  means  of  his  own 
words  and  deeds  incessantly  reported  far  and  wide  by  those  who  wit¬ 
nessed  them,  although  this  process  was  in  some  degree  retarded  by  oc¬ 
casional  injunctions  not  to  make  him  known,  and  then  by  the  preach¬ 
ing  and  the  miracles  of  the  twelve  apostles  who  were  sent  forth  for  the 
very  purpose. 

2.  And  said  unto  his  servants,  This  is  John  the  Bap¬ 
tist  ;  he  is  risen  from  the  dead  ;  and  therefore  mighty 
works  do  show  forth  themselves  in  him. 

The  effect  produced  by  this  increasing  fame  of  Jesus  on  the  mind  of 
Herod,  although  strange,  is  not  incredible,  but  true  to  nature  and  ex¬ 
perience.  His  conclusion  was  that  this  was  John  the  Baptist,  who 
was  indeed  dead,  but  as  the  conscience-stricken  king  imagined,  had 
been  raised  from  the  dead^  from  among  them,  their  condition  and 
society,  not  from  death  as  an  abstraction  or  a  mere  condition  without 
reference  to  persons.  The  doctrine  of  a  resurrection,  although  veiled, 
or  only  partially  disclosed  in  the  Old  Testament,  was  now  an  article  of 
faith  with  all  the  Jews  except  the  Sadducees,  who  seem  to  have  re¬ 
jected  it  on  philosophical  rather  than  scriptural  grounds.  Even  Herod, 
who  seems  elsewhere  to  be  called  a  Sadducee  (see  Mark  8,  15),  was 
either  less  incredulous  on  this  point,  or  was  scared  out  of  his  unbelief 
by  guilty  fear.  This  idea  was  the  more  strange  because  J ohn  per¬ 
formed  no  miracle  (John  10,  41),  and  therefore  miracles  could  be  no 
proof  of  his  resuscitation.  But  even  as  to  this  point  the  evangelist 
suggests  without  developing  an  explanation.  Therefore^  literally,  for 
(or  an  account  of)  this,  i.  e.  because  he  has  appeared  again,  with  some 
new  message  or  authority,  perhaps  to  punish  those  who  would  not 
hear  him,  or  who  slew  him  when  he  came  before.  Such_an  imagination 


388 


MATTHEW  14,2.3. 


was  not  wholly  destitute  of  colour,  since  the  prophecy  of  Malachi  re¬ 
specting  John  suggests  the  idea  of  successive  advents,  which  might 
well  be  misconceived  by  Herod  as  relating  to  distinct  appearances  of 
one  and  the  same  person.  (See  above,  on  11, 10. 14.)  The  expressions 
of  the  last  clause  are  particularly  strong  in  the  original.  For  this  (cause) 
energize  the  powers  in  hiin^  i.  e.  miraculous  or  superhuman  powers,  not 
only  show  forth  themselves  (which  conveys  too  little,  and  is  neither  the 
exact  idea  nor  the  form  of  the  original),  but  are  busy,  active,  energetic, 
which  last  is  a  word  of  kindred  origin  with  that  here  used.  The  Eng¬ 
lish  version  gives  to  powers  the  secondary  meaning  which  it  sometimes 
has  of  miracles,  or  mighty  works,  as  the  effects  and  proofs  of  super¬ 
human  power  (see  above,  on  13,  54.  58) ;  but  the  primary  meaning  is 
entitled  to  the  preference  as  such  and  on  account  of  its  conjunction 
with  a  verb  requiring  it,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  change  which  the 
translators  have  been  forced  to  make  in  it,  in  order  to  retain  their  cus¬ 
tomary  version  of  the  noun,  since  a  miracle  cannot  be  said  to  act  or  to 
be  active,  which  can  be  asserted  only  of  the  power  that  produces  it. 
All  that  need  be  added  as  to  this  point  is  that,  out  of  twenty  places 
where  the  same  Greek  verb  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  this  and 
the  parallel  passage  in  Mark  (6,  14)  are  the  only  ones  in  which  it  is 
not  strictly  rendered  as  expressive  of  efficient  action.  Thus  explained 
the  phrase  before  us  is  still  more  significant  of  Herod’s  guilty  fears, 
occasioned  by  the  very  rumour  of  our  Saviour’s  miracles,  and  uttered 
to  his  servants,  literally,  boys,  or  young  men,  for  which  usage  see  above, 
on  8,  6.  12,  18. 

3.  For  Herod  had  laid  hold  on  John,  and  hound  him, 
and  put  (him)  in  prison  for  Herodias'  sake,  his  brother 
Philip's  wife. 

One  of  the  characteristics  of  a  well-ordered  history,  as  distinguish¬ 
ed  from  mere  chronicles  or  annals,  is  the  way  in  which  the  writer  in¬ 
terweaves  his  materials  instead  of  simply  throwing  them  together, 
going  back  to  take  up  what  has  been  allowed  to  drop,  and  introducing 
topics  even  out  of  their  precise  chronological  arrangement,  when  re¬ 
quired  to  complete  or  to  illustrate  the  main  narrative.  The  best  his¬ 
torians  in  every  language  are  remarkable  for  this  constructive  skill, 
which  is  rather  natural  than  artificial,  and  is,  therefore,  often  greatest 
where  it  shows  the  least.  Some  of  the  best  samples  of  this  quality 
are  furnished  by  the  sacred  writers,  whose  simplicity  is  not,  as  some 
imagine,  the  effect  of  ignorance  and  inexperience,  but  of  perfect  skill ; 
their  artlessness  is  not  opposed  to  art  but  to  artifice,  and  often  where 
the  condescending  critic  pities  the  deficiency  of  purpose  and  coherent 
plan,  it  is  the  perfectness  of  both  which  has  deceived  him.  Many  in¬ 
stances  of  this  kind  are  afforded  by  the  gospels,  one  of  which  is  now 
before  us,  in  the  different  but  equally  artistic  mode  in  which  the  writers 
introduce  the  narrative  of  John’s  imprisonment.  Matthew  and  Mark 
defer  it  till  they  come  to  speak  of  Herod’s  terror  when  he  heard  of 
Jesus,  where  they  are  naturally  led  to  give  the  causes  of  that  strange 
impression  by  relating  the  whole  story  in  connection.  Luke  relates 


389 


MATTHEW  14,3.4. 

the  perplexity  of  Herod  in  the  same  way,  but  had  no  occasion  to  recount 
his  previous  treatment  of  the  Baptist,  having  recorded  it  already  in  his 
narrative  of  John’s  appearance  and  official  ministry.  Now  as  both 
these  methods  are  entirely  natural  and  in  accordance  with  the  theory 
and  practice  of  the  best  historians,  and  while  the  dilference  may  serve 
to  show  the  independence  of  the  writers  who  exhibit  it,  the  charge  of 
incoherence  against  either  is  as  groundless  as  against  the  best  digested 
portions  of  Polybius  or  Gibbon.  The/br  at  the  beginning  of  this  verso 
refers  to  the  phrase  risen  from  the  dead  in  the  one  preceding.  To  one 
acquainted  with  the  previous  facts  this  expression  would  need  explana¬ 
tion,  and  Matthew  now  proceeds  to  give  it.  Laid  hold,  literally,  seiz¬ 
ing  (or  arresting),  the  verb  explained  above  (on  9,  25.  12, 11)  as  denot¬ 
ing  either  violent  or  friendly  seizure.  Bound,  either  in  the  strict  sense 
(A  fastened,  chained,  or  in  the  wide  one  of  confined,  imprisoned,  which 
the  Greek  sometimes  seems  to  have.  In  jprison,  literally  guard  or 
ward,  which  may  either  mean  the  place  or  the  condition  of  confine¬ 
ment.  For  (on  account  of)  Herodias,  the  daughter  of  Aristobulus,  son 
of  Herod  the  Great,  was  married  by  her  grandfather  to  his  son  Philip, 
not  the  tetrarch  mentioned  in  Luke  3,  1.  but  another,  who  appears  to 
have  occupied  no  public  station.  Leaving  him  she  married,  in  direct 
violation  of  the  law,  her  uncle  and  brother-in-law  Herod  Antipas,  who 
had  divorced  his  own  wife  the  daughter  of  Aretas,  an  Arabian  king, 
supposed  to  be  the  same  of  whom  Paul  speaks  in  one  of  his  epistles 
(2  Cor.  11,  32).  This  divorce  involved  him  in  a  war  from  which  he 
could  be  extricated  only  by  the  Roman  arms.  Enough  has  now  been 
said  to  show  the  character  not  only  of  Herodias  and  of  Antipas,  but 
also  of  the  whole  Herodian  race,  whose  history  is  stained  with  many 
odious  imputations  of  adultery  and  even  incest  under  the  pretence  of 
marriage. 

4.  For  John  said  tinto  him,  It  is  not  lawful  for  thee 
to  have  her. 

It  is  not  without  reason  that  Matthew  speaks  of  John  as  being 
thrown  into  prison  because  Herod  married  Herodias  5  for  John  said  to 
Herod,  it  is  not  lawful  (or  permitted)  either  by  the  law  of  nature  or 
the  law  of  l^Ioses,  to  have  (or  hold  in  thy  possession)  the  wife  of  thy 
own  brother  (Mark  6,  IS).  There  is  something  very  pleasing  in  this 
incidental  glimpse  of  John’s  consistency  and  faithfulness  in  reproving 
sin  without  respect  of  persons,  to  which  Christ  himself  seems  to  refer 
when  he  describes  John  as  neither  a  reed  shaken  by  the  wind,  nor  a 
courtier  in  soft  raiment  11,  7.  8.  Luke  7,  24.  25).  This  description 
is  emphatically  verified  by  John’s  appearance  in  the  scene  before  us, 
where  the  austere  preacher  of  the  wilderness,  who  so  severely  scourged 
both  Pharisees  and  Sudducecs.  though  enemies  and  rivals,  as  alike  be¬ 
longing  to  the  seed  of  the  serpent  (Gen.  3,  15),  or  generation  of  vipers 
(3,  7.  12,  34);  appears  reproving  Herod  on  his  throne  for  his  inces¬ 
tuous  connection  with  his  brother’s  wife,  and  all  his  other  sins,  of 
which  this  was  the  most  flagrant  and  notorious,  until  ho  crowned  all  by 
his  treatment  of  John  himself  (Luke  3,  19.  2^). 


390 


MATTHEW  14,5.0.7. 

5.  And  when  ne  would  have  put  him  to  death,  he 
feared  the  multitude,  because  they  counted  him  as  a 
prophet. 

I  We  learn  from  Mark  (6,  20)  the  interesting  fact,  that  John  the 
Baptist  made  a  powerful  impression  upon  Herod  when  brought  into 
contact  with  him,  and  that  Herod  acknowledging  his  personal  excel¬ 
lence  and  also  his  divine  legation,  kept  or  saved  him  for  a  time  from  the 
malice  of  Herodias,  and  did  many  things  of  those  which  John  required 
or  recommended.  These  promising  appearances,  however,  were  but 
temporary.  Herod,  whose  character  was  weak  as  well  as  wicked,  soon 
3delded  to  the  constant  influence  of  Herodias,  and  at  length  desired 
himself  to  kill  John,  but  was  deterred  by  his  immense  popularity  and 
credit  as  a  prophet.  These  accounts  are  perfectly  consistent  with  each 
ot^ier  and  with  the  statement  of  Josephus,  that  Herod  was  afraid  of 
some  political  excitement  as  the  fruit  of  John  the  Baptist’s  preaching. 
Such  men,  in  such  emergencies,  are  usually  actuated,  not  by  simple  but 
by  complex  motives,  and  the  choice  made  by  the  different  historians  is 
just  which  might  have  been  expected  from  their  several  views  and  pur¬ 
poses  in  writing.  Here  again  the  German  notion  of  a  contradiction 
between  jMark  and  Matthew,  is  entirly  at  variance  with  our  principles 
and  practice  as  to  evidence  in  courts  of  justice. 

6.  But  when  HerocBs  birthday  was  kept,  the  daugh¬ 
ter  of  Herodias  danced  before  them,  and  pleased  Herod. 

Birth-day  is  in  Greek  a  word  used  bj''  the  older  writers  to  denote 
a  day  kept  in  memory  of  the  dead,  but  in  the  later  classics  and  the 
Greek  of  the  NeAV  Testament,  confounded  with  a  kindred  form 
which  means  a  birth-day,  or  rather  its  festivities,  and,  therefore,  written 
in  the  plural.  The  daughter  of  Herodias^  name,  according  to 

Josephus,  was  Salome^  danced^  not  with  others  but  alone,  the  dancing 
here  intended  not  so  much  resembling  the  favourite  amusement  of  the 
social  circle  as  the  professional  exhibition  of  the  theatre,  and,  therefore, 
never  practised  in  the  east  or  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans  by  women 
of  respectable  condition,  so  that  this  display  was  really  a  sacrifice  of 
dignity  and  decency,  intended  to  prevail  upon  the  king  by  the  seduc¬ 
tions  of  an  art,  which  he  probably  admired,  and  in  which  Salome  may 
have  had  extraordinary  grace  and  skill.  All  this  is  in  the  form  of  a 
preamble  or  preliminary  statement  of  the  circumstances  in  which  the 
event  about  to  be  recorded  took  place. 

7.  Whereupon  he  promised  with  an  oath  to  give  her 
whatsoever  she  would  ask. 

The  extravagance  of  Herod’s  admiration  was  evinced  by  his  incon¬ 
siderate  and  lavish  promise  or  agreement.  (For  the  usage  of  the  Greek 
verb,  see  above,  on  7,  23.  10,  32.)  Ash  {for  herself)  as  the  middle 
voice  in  Greek  denotes.  Not  content  with  this  rash  promise,  he  con¬ 
firmed  it  by  an  oath. 


MATTHEW  14,8.9. 


391 


8.  And  she,  being  before  instructed  of  her  mother,  said, 
Give  me  here  J olin  the  Baptist’s  head  in  a  charger. 

Before  instructed  or  rather,  instigated  put  forward,  which  agrees 
with  Mark’s  account  that  there  had  been  no  previous  understanding  or 
agreement  between  them,  but  that  the  mother  had  employed  the 
daughter’s  dancing  to  excite  the  liberality  of  Herod,  whose  infirmities 
she  well  knew,  with  the  purpose  of  afterwards  giving  it  the  direction 
which  she  most  desired  and  he  least  expected.  The  prompt  laconic 
answer  shows  not  only  a  predetermined  plan,  but  a  vindictive  temper 
and  an  iron  will.  Her  sanguinary  purpose  was  expressed  still  more 
distinctly  by  requesting  not  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist  as  a  favour, 
but  his  head  as  a  material  gift.  Here^  on  the  spot,  and  by  implication, 
now,  without  delay,  as  expressed  in  Mark  (6,  25).  In  a  charger^  an 
old  English  word  for  a  large  dish,  so  called  according  to  the  etymolo¬ 
gists  from  the  load  that  it  sustained.  The  Greek  word  originally 
means  a  board ;  then  among  other  special  applications  of  the  term,  a 
wooden  trencher  ;  and  then  any  dish,  without  regard  to  the  material. 
As  Mark  does  not  record  this  as  a  part  of  the  suggestion  of  Herodias, 
it  was  probably  added  by  the  daughter  of  her  own  accord,  as  a  hideous 
jest  implying  an  intention  to  devour  it. 

9.  And  tbe  king  was  sorry :  nevertlieless  for  the  oath’s 
sake,  and  them  which  sat  with  him  at  meat,  he  command¬ 
ed  (it)  to  be  given  (her). 

This  abrupt  return  of  Herod  to  his  senses  is  almost  as  clear  a  sign 
of  intellectual  and  moral  weakness  as  his  foolish  promise  and  his 
wicked  oath.  It  also  shows  the  motive  of  the  eager  promptitude  with 
which  his  offer  was  embraced  and  acted  on.  This  single  scene  affords 
a  glimpse  into  the  private  life  and  character  of  this  abandoned  couple, 
fearfully  in  keeping  wdth  the  history  of  their  family  as  given  by  Jose¬ 
phus,  though  a  flattering  and  interested  writer.  But  Herod’s  sorrow, 
although  probably  sincere,  was  not  sufficient  to  undo  the  mischief 
which  his  levity  had  done.  For  this,  two  reasons  seem  to  be  assigned, 
his  conscience  and  his  honour,  a  mistaken  sense  of  duty  and  a  feeling 
of  false  shame  in  reference  to  those  around  him.  For  (because  of,  on 
account  of )  the  oatlis^  which  may  be  taken  either  as  a  generic  plural, 
equivalent  in  meaning  to  the  singular,  or  as  an  inexact  description  of 
the  promise  and  the  oath  (distinctly  mentioned  in  v.  7)  by  a  name 
strictly  applicable  only  to  the  latter ;  or  as  referring  to  an  eager  repe¬ 
tition  of  his  oath,  not  unlikely  to  have  happened  although  not  record¬ 
ed.  And  those  reclining  with  him  (at  his  table,  as  his  guests),  before 
whom  he  had  made  the  promise,  and  who  may  have  affected  to  applaud 
his  generosity  and  gallantry,  and,  therefore,  might  be  probably  ex¬ 
pected  to  despise  his  fickleness  and  meanness  if  he  broke  it.  The  sim¬ 
plest  construction  is  to  take  these  as  two  distinct  motives,  a  sincere 
belief  that  he  was  bound  to  keep  his  oath,  and  a  morbid  cowardly  re¬ 
gard  to  the  opinion  of  his  company.  It  may  be,  however,  that  the  two 


S92 


MATTHEW  14,9.10.11. 

are  to  be  more  completely  blended,  and  the  one  allowed  to  qualify  the 
other,  when  the  sense  will  be,  that  he  considered  his  oath  binding  be¬ 
cause  publicly  uttered,  and  that  if  it  had  been  sworn  in  private  he 
would  not  have  scrupled  to  retract  or  break  it.  In  either  case  the 
oath  was  an  unlawful  one  on  two  accounts,  because  it  was  gratuitous, 
and,  therefore,  taking  the  Lord’s  name  in  vain  (5,  34  Ex.  20,  7),  and 
because  it  was  dangerous,  granting  in  advance  what  he  might  have 
no  right  to  give,  as  the  event  proved  to  his  sorrow  and  his  cost.  Al¬ 
though  he  could  not,  therefore,  have  broken  his  promise  without  guilt, 
he  could  not  keep  it  without  greater  guilt,  a  choice  of  evils  in  which 
no  man  has  a  right  to  implicate  himself  by  rash  engagements. 


10.  And  he  sent^  and  beheaded  John  in  the  prison. 

And  sending  Tie  beheaded^  liim.  through  an  executioner  (Mark  6,  27), 
but  virtually  with  his  own  hands  (see  above,  on  8,  5.  11,  3),  in  the 
prison^  which,  according  to  Josephus,  was  the  fortress  of  Machaerus  on 
the  southern  frontier  of  Perma  near  the  Dead  Sea.  We  must,  there¬ 
fore,  either  assume  an  interval  of  several  days  between  the  order  and 
the  execution,  or  suppose  this  feast  to  have  been  held  at  the  fortress, 
during  a  visit  of  the  tetrarch  to  that  part  of  his  dominions.  The  objec¬ 
tion  to  the  latter  supposition,  which  is  otherwise  the  most  satisfactory, 
is  that  the  company  described  by  IMark  (G,  21)  are  the  lords,  high  cap¬ 
tains,  and  chief  estates,  not  of  Herod’s  kingdom,  but  of  Galilee^  its 
north-western  province,  who  would  hardly  be  assembled  on  the  south¬ 
ern  frontier  of  Persea,  even  if  Herod  would  be  likely  to  select  a  military 
station  near  the  desert  for  the  celebration  of  his  birth-day. 

11.  And  his  head  was  brought  in  a  charger,  and  given 
to  the  damsel :  and  she  brought  (it)  to  her  mother. 

This  verse  records  the  punctual  performance  of  Herod’s  promise, 
and  the  exact  execution  of  his  orders,  not  excepting  the  dish,  which 
with  its  ghastly  contents  was  presented  to  the  dancing-girl,  whose  fee 
it  was,  and  by  her  to  her  mother,  who,  although  behind  the  scenes, 
was  the  principal  actor,  or  at  least  the  manager  of  this  whole  tragedy. 
It  may  here  be  added,  that  she  afterwards  involved  her  husband  in  a 
ruinous  attempt  at  further  elevation,  which  was  thwarted  by  her 
brother  Herod  Agrippa  (the  one  whose  death  is  recorded  in  the 
twelfth  chapter  of  Acts),  and  resulted  in  the  exile  both  of  Herod  and 
Herodias,  first  to  Gaul,  and  then  to  Spain,  where  the  former  and  nmst 
probably  the  latter  died.  Salome,  true  to  her  Herodian  instincts,  was 
married  twice  to  near  relations ;  first  to  her  father’s  brother  (and 
namesake)  Philip  the  Tetrarch  (see  above,  on  v.  3,  and  compare  Luke 
3, 1),  and  after  his  death  to  Aristobulus,  son  of  Herod  king  of  Chalcis, 
to  whom  she  bore  three  children.  These  facts  are  stated  by  Josephus, 
the  contemporary  Jewish  historian;  the  story  of  her  death,  preserved 
by  the  Byzantine  writer  Nicephorus,  is  commonly  regarded  as  a  later 
fiction. 


393 


MATTHEW  14,  12.  13. 

12.  And  his  disciples  came,  and  took  up  the  body, 
and  buried  it,  and  went  and  told  Jesus. 

Ilis  discijAcs^  Ayhicli  might  possibly  mean  those  of  Jesus,  can  have 
no  such  meaning  in  Mark  (G,  29)  where  Jesus  is  not  mentioned  till 
the  next  verse,  and  in  obvious  connection  with  another  subject.  It 
must,  therefore,  signify  John’s  own  disciples,  either  those  who  had  once 
been  so  before  his  imprisonment,  or  those  who  still  professed  to  be  so 
under  some  mistaken  notion  as  to  the  relation  which  he  bore  to  the 
Messiah,  or  some  sceptical  misgiving  as  to  J esus  (see  above,  on  9, 14. 
11,  2).  It  is  possible  however  that  it  has  a  wider  sense  than  either  of 
those  just  proposed,  and  means  some  of  the  many  who,  without  having 
ever  been  his  personal  attendants  or  disciples  in  the  strict  sense,  had 
received  his  doctrines  and  his  baptism.  Of  such  disciples  the  whole  land 
was  full,  and  even  on  the  outskirts  of  Peraea  there  could  not  be  want¬ 
ing  some  to  pay  this  last  respect  to  his  decapitated  body,  and  to  an¬ 
nounce  his  death  to  Jesus,  who  may  now  have  been  recognized  by 
many  for  the  first  time  as  the  Baptist’s  legitimate  successor. 

13.  When  Jesus  heard  (of  it),  he  departed  thence  by 
ship  into  a  desert  place  apart  :  and  when  the  people  had 
heard  (thereof),  they  followed  him  on  foot  out  of  the 
cities. 

We  learn  from  Mark  (6,  30)  and  Luke  (9, 10),  that  the  retreat  here 
mentioned  was  immediately  subsequent,  not  only  to  the  death  of  J ohn 
the  Baptist,  but  to  the  return  of  the  twelve  from  their  first  mission,  and 
was  partly  intended  to  afford  them  some  repose  after  their  labours. 
He  icitlidrew^  retreated  (see  above,  on  2, 12.  4, 12.  9,  24.  12, 15)  into  a 
desert  'place  hy  sMp^  or  rather  {in')  a  sJiip^  i.  e.  the  one  provided  by  our 
Lord’s  direction  for  his  own  exclusive  use  (Mark  3,  9).  Apart ^  in  pri¬ 
vate,  privately,  relating  not  so  much  to  the  mode  of  their  departure  as 
to  its  design  and  purpose.  W^e  know  from  other  sources  that  the  place 
to  which  they  went  was  an  unfrequented  spot  belonging  to  a  town 
called  Bethsaida  (Luke  9, 10),  on  the  other  (or  eastern)  side  of  the  sea 
of  Galilee  or  Tiberias  (John  0, 1).  We  are  now  approaching  an  occur¬ 
rence  so  remarkable  that  all  the  four  evangelists  have  given  a  detailed 
account  of  it.  This  not  only  furnishes  a  richer  source  of  illustration 
than  in  any  former  case,  but  creates  a  strong  presumption  that  the 
matter  thus  contained  in  all  the  gospels  is,  for  some  reason,  worthy  of 
particular  attention.  We  have  here  a  striking  proof  that  our  Saviour’s 
popularity  had  not  begun  to  wane  when  this  occurrence  took  place  ; 
for  not  only  did  the  multitudes  still  throng  him  w’hen  at  home  (Mark 
C,  31),  but  no  sooner  had  he  pushed  off  in  his  boat  to  seek  a  momentary 
respite  elsewhere,  than  the  masses  put  themselves  in  motion  to  pur¬ 
sue  or  rather  to  outstrip  him,  so  that  when  he  reached  his  place  of 
destination  the}’’  wem  ready  to  receive  him,  and  soon  surrounded  him 
as  if  he  had  not  left  them.  As  they  went  onfoot^  it  is  of  course  im¬ 
plied  that  they  went  ly  land^  and  some  regard  this  as  the  meaning  of 


394 


MATTHEW  14,13.14.15. 


the  Greek  word  {neCv)  which  is  sometimes  used  in  opposition  to  a 
voyage  by  water  in  Herodotus  and  Homer.  But  even  in  these  cases 
the  idea  of  a  land-march  or  journey  is  rather  necessarily  implied  than 
formally  expressed.  From  the  towns  or  cities  in  that  region,  not  ex¬ 
cluding  the  adjacent  rural  districts,  which  are  generally  represented  as 
dependent  on  the  nearest  cities,  as  for  instance  in  the  case  of  Eeth- 
saida  and  its  desert  (Luke  9, 10)..  We  learn  from  John  (6,  4)  that  all 
this  happened  just  before  the  Passover,  i.  e.  the  third  during  our 
Lord’s  public  ministry.  (See  John  2, 13.  23.) 

14.  And  Jesns  went  forth,  and  saw  a  great  multitude, 
and  was  moved  with  compassion  toward  them,  and  he 
healed  their  sick. 

As  these  were  not  strangers  or  new-comers,  but  the  same  crowds 
who  had  pressed  to  see  and  hear  him  on  the  west  side  of  the  lake, 
their  eager  importunity  excited  our  Lord’s  pity.  Going  out  (from  his 
boat,  or  from  the  place  of  his  retirement,  which  however  he  had 
scarcely  reached,  as  they  outwent  him)  he  saw  much  people  (literally, 
crowd  or  concourse),  and  was  moved  with  compassion  toward  (or  over) 
them,  the  same  peculiar  idiom  that  was  used  above  in  9,  36.  and  there 
explained.  AVhat  excited  his  divine  and  human  sympathy  was  not 
of  course  their  numbers  or  their  physical  condition,  but  their  spiritual 
destitution.  At  the  view  of  this  representative  multitude,  drawn  from 
so  many  quarters,  and  perhaps  swelled  by  the  yearly  stream  of  pil¬ 
grims  to  the  Passover  (John  6,  4),  our  Lord  began  without  delay  to 
teach  them  (Mark  6,  34),  thereby  showing  what  he  reckoned  their 
most  urgent  want,  and  also  that  although  it  was  his  miracles  of  heal¬ 
ing  that  had  prompted  them  to  follow  him  (John  6,  2),  they  were  not 
without  some  just  view  of  the  intimate  relation  of  his  wonders  to  his 
doctrines,  or  at  least  not  unwilling  to  receive  instruction  from  the  same 
lips  which  commanded  with  authority  the  most  malignant  demons  and 
diseases. 

15.  And  when  it  was  evening,  his  disciples  came  to 
him,  saying.  This  is  a  desert  place,  and  the  time  is  now 
past ;  send  the  multitude  away,  that  they  may  go  into 
the  villages,  and  buy  themselves  victuals. 

When  his  discourse  was  ended,  or  perhaps  while  it  was  yet  in 
progress,  his  disciples,  i.  e.  the  apostles  (Luke  9,  12)  began  to  be 
uneasy  at  the  presence  of  so  vast  a  multitude  in  a  place  which  had 
been  chosen  for  the  very  reason  that  it  was  secluded  and  remote  from 
thoroughfares,  though  not  cut  off  from  all  communication  with  the 
surrounding  cultivated  country.  Evening  heing  come,  a  verb  employed 
before  (8,  16)  in  reference  to  the  lapse  of  time,  and  there  explained. 
His  disciples  came  to  him,  probably  while  he  was  stlli  engaged  in  teach¬ 
ing,  with  a  view  to  interrupt  him.  Saying  desert  is  the  place  (where 


395 


MATTHEW  14,15-19. 

we  are  now  assembled)  andi  now  (already,  or  by  this  time),  the 
time  is  now  past.  The  word  translated  time  is  identical  with  the 
Latin  hora  and  the  English  howr^  but  used  in  Greek  with  great¬ 
er  latitude  of  meaning,  ranging  from  hours  or  even  moments  to 
the  seasons  of  the  year  and  time  in  general.  (See  above,  on  8,  13. 
9,  22.  10.  19.)  Here  it  may  either  have  the  Latin  sense  or  that 
of  daytime.  This  anxious  statement  as  to  the  lateness  of  the  hour 
is  followed  by  a  proposition.  Send  the  multitude  away,  dismiss, 
dissolve  them  as  an  audience  or  congregation  (as  the  same  verb  means 
in  Acts.  19,  41.  28,  25).  This  confirms  the  previous  supposition  that 
our  Lord  was  still  discoursing  when  the  twelve  made  this  suggestion, 
which  was,  therefore,  tantamount  to  saying  that  he  was  detaining  them 
too  long,  that  it  was  time  to  pause  and  give  them  daylight  to  disperse 
in.  The  hint  was  no  doubt  well-meant  and  regarded  by  the  men  who 
made  it  as  pre-eminently  wise  and  prudent,  little  suspecting  that  their 
master,  far  from  being  at  a  loss  as  they  were,  had  pursued  this  very 
course  in  order  to  convince  them  and  others  how  little  he  depended  on 
the  ordinary  means  of  subsistence.  The  disciples  add  a  still  more 
specific  proposition,  that  the  people  be  dispersed  among  the  nearest 
farms  and  villages  to  buy  provisions  for  themselves.  Buy,  in  Greek  a 
word  peculiarly  appropriate,  because  it  originally  means  to  marhet,  and 
has  primary  reference  to  the  purchase  of  provisions. 

16.  But  Jesus  said  unto  them,  They  need  not  depart ; 
give  ye  them  to  eat. 

17.  And  they  say  unto  him,  We  have  here  but  five 
loaves,  and  two  fishes. 

18.  He  said,  Bring  them  hither  to  me. 

We  learn  from  John  (0,  6),  that  Philip  was  the  .spokesman  upon 
this  occasion,  and  that  our  Saviour  in  this  conversation  tried  the  faith 
of  his  disciples,  i.  e.  their  confidence  in  his  power  to  provide  for  all 
emergencies.  J ohn’s  additions  to  the  narrative  are  not  excluded,  much 
less  contradicted,  by  the  others.  They  (the  multitude)  have  no  need 
to  depart  (or  go  away  in  search  of  food).  Gire  to  them  yourselves 
(vfxeis  emphatic  in  itself  and  by  position).  In  answer  to  their  natural 
objection,  that  they  have  scarcely  a  sufficient  provision  for  themselves 
(17),  he  simply  orders  it  to  be  produced  and  placed  at  his  disposal  (18). 

19.  And  he  commanded  the  multitude  to  sit  down  on 
the  grass,  and  took  the  five  loaves,  and  the  two  fishes, 
and  looking  up  to  heaven,  he  blessed,  and  brake,  and  gave 
the  loaves  to  (his)  disciples,  and  the  disciples  to  the  mul¬ 
titude. 


396 


MATTHEW  14,19.20. 


Hating  ordered  the  multitudes  {or  crowds')  to  sit  down^  literally, 
lie  dowi\  or  recline^  the  customary  posture  even  at  table  (see 
above,  on  8,  11.  9,  10),  but  especially  convenient  in  the  open  air, 
and  when  the  food  was  spread  upon  the  ground.  On  the  grass,  liter¬ 
ally,  grasses,  a  circumstance  which  not  only  adds  to  the  beauty  of  the 
picture,  and  betrays  a  vivid  recollection  of  the  scene  described,  perhaps 
that  of  Peter  (compare  John  6,  10),  but  explains  the  word  desert  pre¬ 
viously  used  (v.  13)  as  denoting  not  a  barren  waste,  but  only  an  unfre¬ 
quented  solitude,  most  probably  an  untilled  pasture-ground,  to  which 
the  corresponding  Hebrew  word  is  frequently  applied  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  (e.  g.  Ps.  65,  13.  Joel  2,  22.)  He  took  the  five  loaves  in  succes¬ 
sion,  blessing  each  or  all  together.  Bread  and  Zoo/*  are  expressed  by  the 
same  word  in  Greek  as  they  are  in  French  {pain, pains).  Looking  up  is  a 
natural  and  scriptural  gesture  in  addressing  God,  whom  all  men  as  it 
were  instinctively  regard  as  dwelling  in  some  special  sense  above  them. 
Heaven  denotes  that  distant  place  of  God’s  abode,  but  also  the  visible 
expanse  which  seems  to  separate  us  from  it  (see  above,  on  3,  2.  16.  5. 
26.)  Blessed,  a  verb  originally  meaning  to  speak  well  of,  but  in  usage 
applied  to  God’s  conferring  favours  upon  men  (25,  34),  to  men’s  invok¬ 
ing  such  favours  upon  others  (Luke  2,  34),  and  to  men’s  praising  God 
particularly  for  such  favours  (Luke  2,  28).  In  the  case  before  us  these 
three  senses  may  be  said  to  meet ;  for  as  a  man  our  Saviour  gave 
thanks  and  implored  a  blessing,  while  as  God  he  granted  it.  The  in¬ 
tervention  of  the  twelve  in  this  distribution,  while  it  answered  the  im¬ 
portant  but  inferior  purpose  of  securing  order  and  decorum,  also  ena¬ 
bled  them  to  testify  more  positively  both  to  the  scantiness  of  the  pro¬ 
vision  and  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  supply.  The  particularity  of 
this  description  corresponds  to  the  deliberate  and  formal  nature  of 
the  acts  themselves,  intended  to  arouse  attention  and  preclude  all 
surmise  of  deception  or  collusion.  Nothing,  indeed,  could  less  re¬ 
semble  the  confusion  and  obscurity  of  all  pretended  miracles,  than 
the  regular  and  almost  ceremonious  style  in  which  this  vast  crowd 
was  first  seated  and  then  fed,  without  the  least  disorder  or  conceal¬ 
ment  as  to  any  part  of  the  proceedings. 


20.  And  they  did  all  eat,  and  were  filled :  and  they 
took  up  of  the  fragments  that  remained  twelve  baskets 
full. 

The  unequal  division  of  the  verses  here  is  arbitrary  and  capricious 
and  should  serve  to  remind  us  that  this  whole  arrangement  is  the 
work  of  a  learned  printer  in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  not  entitled  to 
the  least  weight  in  deciding  the  construction  of  a  sentence  or  connec¬ 
tion  of  a  passage.  Bid  all  eat  is  in  modern  English  an  emphatic  form, 
the  auxiliary  strengthening  the  verb,  as  if  the  fact  had  been  denied  or 
doubted ;  but  it  here  represents  the  simple  past  tense,  all  ate,  or  re¬ 
taining  the  Greek  collocation,  ate  all.  implying  that  the  miraculous 
supply  of  food  was  limited  only  by  the  number  of  consumers.  Nor 
was  it  a  mere  nominal  supply  in  each  case,  but  a  full  satisfaction  of  the 


397 


MATTHEW  14,20.21. 

appetite,  even  in  the  case  of  the  most  hungry.  Filled^  satisfied  or 
sated,  a  Greek  verb  anciently  confined  to  the  feeding  of  the  lower  ani¬ 
mals,  but  in  the  later  writers  (such  as  Arrian  and  Plutarch)  extended 
to  the  human  subject.  We  have  here  a  remarkable  example  of  our 
Saviour’s  provident  discretion,  even  in  the  exercise  of  his  almighty 
power.  Had  this  miracle  left  no  trace  of  itself  except  in  the  memory 
of  men,  it  might  have  seemed  like  a  dream  or  an  illusion.  But  against 
this  Jesus  guarded  in  the  most  efi'ectual  manner,  by  commanding  his 
disciples  who  had  aided  in  the  distribution,  to  collect  the  fragments 
which  were  left  over  after  all  were  filled  (John  6,  12).  And  they  toolc 

and  away  with  them,  both  which  ideas  are  suggested  by  the  usage 
of  the  Greek  verb,  and  are  equally  appropriate,  not  only  here  but  in 
9,  6.  13,  12.  and  v.  12  of  this  chapter.  The  cihounding^  surplus,  or  ex¬ 
cess  of  the  fragmenU  (from  frango^  to  break,  like  K^dafiara  from 
KXdco),  broken  pieces,  scraps,  or  what  are  called  in  common  parlance 
“broken  victuals.”  The  design  of  this  command  was  threefold,  first 
to  discourage  waste  and  teach  a  wise  economy  even  in  the  lesser  things 
of  this  life  ;  secondly  to  show  that  in  this  case  as  in  miracles  of  heal¬ 
ing,  the  miraculous  effect  was  to  be  instantly  succeeded  by  the  usual 
condition  and  the  oi^eration  of  all  ordinary  laws  (see  above,  on  8,  15), 
so  that  although  they  had  just  seen  a  vast  concourse  supernaturally 
fed,  they  were  themselves  to  use  the  fragments  for  their  subsequent 
support ;  and  thirdly,  to  preserve  for  some  time  in  their  sight  and  their 
possession  the  substantial  memorials  of  this  wonderful  event,  which 
was  attested  and  recalled  to  mind  by  every  crust  and  every  crumb  of 
which  the  company  partook  until  the  fragments  were  exhausted.  And 
accordingly  we  find  that  our  Lord,  when  afterwards  reminding  them 
of  this  great  wonder  and  another  like  it,  speaks  expressly  of  the  quan¬ 
tity  left  over  after  all  were  filled,  as  one  of  the  most  memorable  cir¬ 
cumstances  in  the  case  (see  below,  on  16,  9).  It  only  remains  to  be 
considered  whether  these  fragments  were  the  refuse  left  by  each  par¬ 
taker  in  the  place  where  he  had  eaten,  or  the  portions  broken  by  our 
Lord  for  distribution  and  remaining  untouched  because  more  than  was 
required  to  supply  all  present.  The  latter  is  not  only  a  more  pleasing 
supposition,  but  equally  consistent  with  the  terms  of  the  narrative 
and  the  other  circumstances  of  the  case.  That  Jesus  should  have  fur¬ 
nished  an  excessive  or  superfluous  supply  is  not  at  variance  with  his 
wisdom  or  omniscience,  as  he  may  have  done  it  for  the  very  purposes 
before  suggested.  The  word  translated  hashet  is  used  in  a  Latin  form 
(cophinus)  by  Juvenal,  as  the  usual  baggage  of  the  Jews  when  trav¬ 
elling.  The  number  twelve  has  reference  to  the  twelve  apostles,  so 
that  each  filled  one,  perhaps  with  some  allusion  to  the  symbolical  im¬ 
port  of  the  miracle. 

21.  And  they  that  had  eaten  were  about  five  thousand 
men,  beside  women  and  children. 

This  may  either  mean  that  there  were  none  such  present,  or  merely 
that  they  are  not  comprehended  in  the  total  of  5000.  The  latter  is 


398 


MATTHEW  14,21. 


no  doubt  the  true  solution  and  to  be  explained  by  a  fact  already  men¬ 
tioned  (see  above,  on  8,  11),  that  the  men  in  ancient  times  as  in  the 
east  at  present  ate  together,  and  reclined  at  their  repasts,  while  the 
v/omen  and  children  ate  apart  from  them  and  in  the  ordinary  sitting 
posture.  Hence  the  companies  or  messes  upon  this  occasion  would  be 
composed  of  men  exclusively,  and  they  alone  could  be  numbered  with 
facility  from  their  distribution  into  fifties  and  hundreds  (Mark  6,  40). 
It  is  not  to  be  supposed,  however,  that  the  women  and  children  would 
be  overlooked  in  this  benevolent  provision,  whether  many  or  few,  as 
some  suppose  upon  the  ground  that  the  multitude  was  chiefly  com¬ 
posed  of  pilgrims  on  their  way  to  the  passover  (John  6,  4),  which  only 
males  were  required  to  attend  (Ex.  23,  17.  Deut.  16,  16.)  But  how  is 
this  to  be  reconciled  with  their  having  no  provisions  (see  above,  on  v.  15, 
and  compare  Mark  6,  36),  which  seems  rather  to  imply  a  concourse  of 
people  drawn  too  far  from  home  by  the  excitement  of  pursuit  (see  above, 
on  V.  13),  and  probably  composed  of  men,  women,  and  children.  But 
whether  these  were  few  or  many,  it  seems  clear  that  they  were  not  includ¬ 
ed  in  the  number  stated  for  the  reason  above  given,  whence  it  follows, 
either  that  those  least  able  to  dispense  with  food  -v^re  thus  provided,  or 
that  the  number  fed  far  transcended  that  recorded,  ’^ichis  without  (i.  e. 
exclusive  of)  women  and  children.  Five  thousand  therefore  is  the 
minimum  of  those  supplied  by  this  stupendous  miracle,  being  merely 
the  number  that  could  be  determined  at  a  glance  from  the  methodical 
arrangement  of  the  messes.  Even  at  this  rate,  the  original  supply 
was  only  that  of  one  loaf  (and  probably  a  small  one)  to  a  thousand 
men  (besides  women  and  children).  But  the  greatness  of  the  miracle 
consists  not  merely  in  the  vast  increase  of  nutritive  material,  but  in 
the  nature  of  the  process  which  effected  it,  and  which  must  be  regard¬ 
ed  as  creative,  since  it  necessarily  involves  not  merely  change  of  form 
or  quality,  or  new  combinations  of  existing  matter,  but  an  absolute 
addition  to  the  matter  itself.  The  infidel  pretence  that  Christ  is  here 
described  as  visibly  multiplying  loaves  and  fishes  in  his  own  hands,  so 
that  every  particle  distributed  was  separately  given  out  by  him,  is  as 
groundless  and  absurd  as  it  is  impious  in  spirit  and  malignant  in  de¬ 
sign.  No  such  process  of  increase  was  presented  to  the  ejms  of  the 
spectators,  who  saw  nothing  but  the  fact  that  the  loaves  and  fishes  still 
continued  to  be  served  until  the  whole  multitude  had  been  supplied. 
(Compare  the  miracles  in  1  Kings,  17, 14.  2  Kings  4,  1-7.)  Equally 
groundless  yet  instructive  are  the  efforts  of  some  sceptical  interpreters  to 
get  rid  of  this  miracle  as  originally  a  parable  afterwards  transformed  into 
a  history,  or  a  myth  founded  on  the  story  of  the  manna,  or  of  Elijah 
fed  by  angels  and  ravens  (1  Kings  17,  6.  19,  6),  or  on  the  doctrine  of 
the  living  bread  as  taught  by  Christ  (John  6,  48)  and  his  apostles  (1 
Cor.  10,  16.)  However  specious  these  hypotheses  may  be,  they  are  at 
bottom  as  gratuitous  and  hollow  as  the  one  of  older  date,  now  laughed 
at  even  by  neologists  themselves,  that  this  is  not  recorded  as  a  miracle 
at  all,  but  merely  as  a  figurative  statement  of  the  fact  that  by  induc¬ 
ing  his  disciples  to  distribute  their  own  scanty  store,  Jesus  prevailed 
on  others  present  who  were  well  provided  to  communicate  with  others 


MATTHEW  14,21.22.23. 


399 


who  had  nothing.  The  only  rational  alternative  is  either  to  refute  the 
overwhelming  proof  of  authenticity  and  inspiration,  or  to  accept  the 
passage  as  the  literal  record  of  a  genuine  creative  miracle,  the  first  and 
greatest  in  the  history,  and  therefore  perhaps  fully  detailed  in  all  the 
gospels. 

22.  And  straightway  Jesus  constrained  his  disciples  to 
get  into  a  ship,  and  to  go  before  him  unto  the  other  side, 
while  he  sent  the  multitudes  away. 

The  effect  of  this  transcendent  miracle  which,  more  than  any  that 
preceded  it,  appears  to  have  convinced  men  of  our  Lord’s  Messiahship 
(John  6,  14),  was  immediately  followed  by  another,  more  especially 
intended  to  confirm  this  impression  on  the  minds  of  his  disciples.  This 
restriction  of  the  circle  of  spectators  was  occasioned  by  his  knowledge 
of  a  movement  in  the  multitude  to  assert  his  regal  claims  as  the  Mes¬ 
siah  (John  6,  15).  To  escape  this  dangerous  and  mistaken  view  of  his 
pretensions,  he  withdrew  himself  at  once  into  the  highlands,  on  the 
verge  of  which  The  multitude  had  just  been  fed  (John  6,  3).  But 
first  Ji6  constrained  (compelled  or  forced)  Ms  disciples  to  enter  (or  em¬ 
bark  upon)  the  ship^  which  waited  on  him  for  the  purpose  (Mark  3,  9), 
and  go  before  him  (literally  lead  forward,  lead  the  way)  to  the  other 
side,  i.  e.  to  Bethsaida  of  Galilee  (Mark  6,  45).  He  compelled  them,  i. 
e.  ordered  them  against  their  will,  as  they  would  naturally  be  averse 
to  leave  him,  both  on  his  account  and  on  their  own,  a  repugnance 
probably  increased  by  the  prospect  of  a  nocturnal  voyage  on  the  lake 
where  they  had  once  been  rescued  from  destruction  by  his  presence 
(8,  23-26).  Some  assume,  as  an  additional  reason  for  sending  the  dis- 
ples  away,  that  they  were  disposed  to  join  in  the  popular  movement 
for  making  him  a  king.  However  this  may  be,  he  stayed  behind  until 
he  should  dAsmiss  (dissolve,  break  up)  the  croicds,  the  same  verb  that  is 
used  above  in  v.  15.  This  was  probably  a  matter  of  some  difficulty, 
and  requiring  the  exercise  not  only  of  authority  but  also  of  a  super¬ 
human  influence. 

23.  And  when  he  had  sent  the  mnltitud-es  away,  he 
went  up  into  a  mountain  apart  to  pray  :  and  when  the 
evening  was  come,  he  was  there  alone. 

Having  sent  them  away  he  departed,  went  away,  into  the  moun¬ 
tain  {not  a  mountain,  but  the  highlands  or  hill-country),  which  has 
been  already  several  times  mentioned  (5,  1.  8,  1),  and  in  which  he 
was  already  (John  6,  3),  so  that  he  is  only  represented  as  pene¬ 
trating  further  into  its  recesses,  not  for  safety  or  repose,  but  to 
pray,  a  striking  incidental  notice  of  our  Lord’s  devotional  habits 
also  given  here  by  Mark  (6,  46),  and  so  far  from  being  inconsist¬ 
ent  with  the  statement  made  by  John  (6,  15)  of  his  motive  for  re¬ 
tiring,  that  the  two  things  were  probably  connected  in  the  closest 


400 


MATTHEW  14,23.24.25. 


manner,  as  the  plan  for  making  him  a  king  may  have  been  both  the 
occasion  and  the  burden  of  his  prayers  at  this  time.  There  is  some¬ 
thing  striking  in  the  last  words  of  this  sentence ;  Evening  l)eing  come^ 
Tie  teas  alone  there.  This  double  mention  of  the  evening  being  come, 
both  before  and  after  the  great  miracle  (see  v.  15),  has  been  misrepre¬ 
sented  as  an  inadvertence  springing  from  forgetfulness  ;  whereas,  it  is 
in  perfect  keeping  with  the  Jewish  practice  of  reckoning  two  evenings 
(Ex.  12,  6.  29,  39.  41.  Lev.  23,  5.  Num.  9.  3.  5.  28,  4),  one  begin- 
ing  at  the  first  decline  and  the  other  at  the  setting  of  the  sun.  With 
this  may  be  compared  among  ourselves  the  occasional  or  local  use  of 
evening  to  denote  the  afternoon. 


24.  But  the  ship  was  now  in  the  midst  of  the  sea,  tossed 
with  waves  :  for  the  wind  was  contrary. 

Kow.,  already,  while  he  was  still  upon  the  shore.  In  the  midst  oj 
the  sea^  not  in  its  mathematical  centre,  or  exactly  half-way  over,  but 
out  at  sea,  away  from  land,  i.  e.  twenty-five  or  thirty  stadia  or  fur¬ 
longs  (John  5,  19).  Tossed,  a  very  inadequate  translation  of  a  Greek 
word  meaning  properly  tormented  (see  above  on  8,  6.  29),  here  applied 
to  the  convulsive  agitation  of  a  vessel  in  a  troubled  sea  and  with  an  ad¬ 
verse  wind.  The  same  verb  is  applied  by  Mark  (6,  48)  -to  the  dis¬ 
ciples  and  translated  toiling.  The  last  clause  gives  the  reason  of  their 
trying  situation, /(??’  the  wind  was  contrary^  i.  e.  from  the  west  or  north¬ 
west. 


25.  And  in  the  fourth  watch  of  the  night  Jesus  went 
unto  them,  walking  on  the  sea. 

The  fourth  watch  of  the  nigTf  according  to  the  Roman  division  of 
the  night  into  four  watches  of  three  hours  each,  which  from  the  time 
of  Pompey’s  conquest  had  supplanted  the  old  Jewish  division  into  three 
(Judg.  7,  19.  Ps.  90,  6).  The  time  here  meant  would  be  the  three 
hours  immediately  preceding  sunrise  or  perhaps  the  break  of  day,  say 
from  3  to  6  o’clock  A.  M.  lie  came  away  from  the  land  to  (or  towards) 
them,  where  they  were  detained  by  the  adverse  wind,  and  making 
painful  efforts  to  advance.  WaUcing.^  originally  walTcing  about,  or  to 
and  fro  peripatetic),  but  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament 

simply  walking,  as  opposed  to  other  attitudes  or  motions.  On  the  sea, 
not  on  the  shore,  as  some  absurdly  fancy ;  for  although  the  phrase 
sometimes  has  that  meaning  in  both  languages  (as  when  we  speak  of  a 
house  or  a  town  upon  the  sea),  the  other  is  equally  justified  by  usage, 
is  entitled  to  the  preference,  where  other  things  are  equal,  as  the  pri¬ 
mary  or  strict  sense  ;  and  is  required  by  the  whole  connection,  by  the 
obvious  intention  to  relate  a  miracle,  and  by  the  fright  of  the  disciples, 
which  could  not  be  owing  to  the  sight  of  a  man  walking  on  the  shore, 
even  if  he  seemed  to  be  walking  in  the  water. 


401 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  14,  26.  27.  28. 

26.  And  when  the  disciples  saw  him  walking  on  the 
sea,  they  were  troubled,  saying.  It  is  a  spirit  ;  and  they 
cried  out  for  fear. 

Seeing  him,  not  merely  ichen  they  saw,  but  in  the  very  act  of  seeing 
him.  Were  troubled,  i.  e.  violently  agitated  and  disturbed  at  this  most 
unexpected  and  inexplicable  sight.  Saying  that  (excluded  by  our  idiom) 
it  is  a  phantom.  This  last  word  is  a  corruption  of  the  Greek  word 
here  employed  {phantasma),  both  equivalent  in  meaning  to  the  Latin 
apparition,  i.  e.  an  unreal  appearance  of  a  real  person  whether  dead  or 
living,  commonly  the  former,  but  in  the  present  case  the  latter.  Spirit 
is  here  used  in  the  specific  sense,  now  attached  to  the  synonymous 
term  ghost,  except  when  applied  to  the  third  person  of  the  Trinity. 
Cried  out  (or  cried  aloud)  for  fear,  the  verb  used  elsewhere  to  de¬ 
scribe  the  unearthly  cries  of  evil  spirits  or  of  those  whom  thej^  possessed. 
(See  above  on  8,  29,  and  compare  Luke  4,  33.  8,  28.)  These  particu¬ 
lars  are  given  both  as  vivid  recollections  of  the  memorable  scene 
‘  and  as  indications  that  the  twelve,  even  after  their  first  mission,  still 
remained  in  statu  pupillari,  with  many  crude  and  childish  views  and 
even  superstitious  feelings,  which  were  not  to  be  entirely  subdued  till 
afterwards. 

27.  But  straightway  Jesus  spake  unto  them,  saying. 
Be  of  good  cheer  ;  it  is  I  ;  be  not  afraid. 

Although  J esus  suffered  them  for  wise  and  holy  reasons  to  be  mo¬ 
mentarily  alarmed,  he  did  not  leave  them  in  this  painful  situation,  but 
immediately  (a  circumstance  here  noted  both  by  IMark  and  Matthew 
spahe  or  toblked  to  them,  no  doubt  in  his  usual  colloquial  tone,  with 
which  they  were  now  so  familiar,  and  by  which  their  superstitious 
fears  would  be  instantly  allayed,  especially  when  uttering  such  cheer¬ 
ing,  reassuring  words  as  those  which  follow.  Be  of  good  cheer,  and 
be  of  good  comfort,  are  the  paraphrastic  versions  given  in  our  Bible, 
of  a  single  fine  Homeric  word  {^dpa-ei  pi.  ?iap(reiTe),  which  might  also 
be  translated  cheer  up,  or  tahe  courage.  (See  above,  on  9,  2.  22.  and 
compare  Luke  8,  48.  John  16,  33.  Acts  23,  11,  and  28,  15,  where  the 
corresponding  noun  appears.)  It  always  presupposes  some  alarm  or 
apprehension  previously  expressed  or  necessarily  implied.  It  is  I, 
literally  1  am,  and  therefore  once  translated  I  am  he  (John  4,  26), 
which  is  really  the  meaning  in  the  other  places  also,  i.  e,  I  am  (he  that 
I  appear  to  be,  or  he  with  whom  you  are  so  well  acquainted).  The 
coincidence  of  this  familiar  phrase  with  the  divine  name  I  AM  (Ex. 
3, 14)  is  extremely  striking,  even  if  fortuitous.  (Compare  Mark  14,  62.) 
Be  not  afraid,  or  frightened,  fear  not,  an  exhortation  which  implies,  as 
something  well  known  to  them  by  experience,  that  his  presence  was 
enough  to  banish  every  danger. 

28.  And  Peter  answered  him  and  said.  Lord,  if  it  be 
thou,  bid  me  come  unto  thee  on  the  water. 


402 


MATTHEW  14,28-31. 

The  narrative  which  follows  is  found  only  in  this  gospel,  which  is  cer¬ 
tainly  remarkable,  as  Mark  is  supposed  to  have  been  aided  by  the  memory 
of  Peter,  and  as  John  has  at  least  in  one  case  supplied  the  name  of  that 
apostle  when  omitted  by  the  others.  (Compare  John  18,  10  with 
Matt.  26,  51.  Mark  14,  47.  Luke  22,  50.)  But  even  if  this  circum¬ 
stance  were  more  suspicious  here  than  in  the  many  other  cases  where 
a  fact  is  only  given  in  one  gospel,  all  misgiving  must  be  done  away  by 
the  characteristic  truth  of  the  whole  narrative  so  perfectly  agreeable 
to  what  we  know  of  Peter  otherwise,  that  if  the  name  had  been  omit¬ 
ted,  it  could  be  supplied  at  once  by  almost  any  reader.  It  is  charac¬ 
teristic  of  the  man,  though  perhaps  belonging  also  to  his  ofBce  as  the 
spokesman  of  the  twelve,  that  he  should  answer  first,  and  by  a  sort  of 
challenge  to  the  Master  to  make  good  his  own  identity  on  certain 
terms  prescribed  by  Peter.  If  it  he  tliou^  literally,  if  thou  be,  corre¬ 
sponding  to  I  am  in  the  preceding  verse.  Bid  me,  order  or  command 
me,  the  verb  used  above  in  vs.  9.  19.  Water,  literally,  icaters,  the 
origin  of  which  plural  form  w^as  explained  above  (on  5,  3). 

29.  And  he  said,  Come.  And  when  Peter  tvas  come 
down  out  of  the  shi]3,  he  walked  on  the  water,  to  go  to 
Jesus. 

.  30.  But  when  he  saw  the  wind  boisterous,  he  was 
afraid  ;  and  beginning  to  sink,  he  cried,  saying.  Lord, 
save  me. 

Coming  down  from  the  shi/p,  Peter  walked  'upon  the  icater,  to  go 
(i.  e.  intending  or  desiring  so  to  do).  Or  the  word  may  mean  that  he 
was  actually  going  when  his  faith  failed.  Seeing  the  wind  strong,  the 
more  exact  though  less  emphatic  marginal  translation.  Boisterous, 
however,  conveys  no  idea  not  implied  in  the  original.  lie  icas  afraid 
is  strictly  passive  both  in  Greek  and  English,  where  the  last  word  is 
originally  not  an  adjective  {fearful),  but  a  participle  {affrayed,  fright¬ 
ened).  This  alarm  is  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  character  of  Peter, 
which  was  more  distinguished  by  impulsive  ardour  than  by  steady 
courage,  whether  physical  or  moral.  To  sink  is  also  properly  a  pas¬ 
sive,  to  be  sunk,  to  be  submerged,  to  be  drawn  beneath  the  surface. 
That  his  faith  did  not  utterly  forsake  him  is  apparent  from  his  cry  for 
help  to  him  who  was  at  hand  to  give  it. 

31.  And  immediately  Jesus  stretched  forth  (his)  hand, 
and  caught  him,  and  said  unto  him,  0  thou  of  little  faith, 
wherefore  didst  thou  doubt  ? 

Stretching  forth  the  hand  caught  him,  an  expressive  word  in  the 
original  suggesting  the  idea  that  he  seized  him  for  himself,  or  took  pos¬ 
session  of  him.  (See  above,  on  6,  13.)  0  thou  of  little  faith,  a  cor- 


MATTHEW  14,31-34. 


403 


rect  but  necessarily  diffuse  translation  of  a  single  Greek  work  (see 
above,  on  G,  30.  8,  2G).  The  faith  in  which  Peter  was  deficient  was 
not  justifying  faith,  nor  general  confidence  in  Christ’s  protection,  but 
that  specific  faith  which  was  essential  to  the  miracle,  a  firm  belief  that 
what  Christ  had  just  commanded  could  be  done  and  done  by  him  and 
at  that  moment.  (See  above,  on  8,  10.  9,  2.  22.  29,  and  below,  on 
15,  28.  17,  20.  21,  21.)  Wherefore^  not  the  ordinary  phrase  translat¬ 
ed  why  11  (9,  .  14.  13,  10),  but  one  occurring  only  here  and  meaning 
strictly,  as  to  what^  in  reference  to  what  cause,  or  from  what  consid¬ 
eration  ?  Doubt^  a  Greek  word,  properly  suggesting  the  idea  of  dis¬ 
traction  or  duplicity  of  mind  and  the  uncertainty  arising  from  it.  It 
occurs  in  the  New  Testament  but  once  besides,  and  that  in  this  same 
gospel  (see  below,  on  28,  17).  After  this  most  interesting  episode, 
Matthew  falls  in  with  the  narrative  of  Mark  as  if  there  had  been  no 
interruption. 

32.  And  when  they  were  come  into  the  ship,  the  wind 
ceased. 

33.  Then  they  that  were  in  the  ship  came  and  wor¬ 
shipped  him,  saying,  Of  a  truth  thou  art  the  Son  of  God. 

They  coming^  in  the  very  act,  or  while  they  were  so  doing.  Ceased^ 
a  most  expressive  word  in  Greek,  denoting  weariness  or  rest  from 
labour,  and  employed  by  Mark  not  only  here  (6,  51),  but  in  his  his¬ 
tory  of  the  previous  stilling  of  the  storm  (4,  39).  The  same  evangelist 
describes,  in  very  strong  terms,  the  astonishment  of  the  disciples  at 
this  double  miracle,  while  Matthew  speaks  of  those  in  the  ship^  which 
must  either  mean  the  passengers  or  crew,  if  any  such  there  were  be¬ 
sides  them,  as  doing  reverence  to  Jesus  and  acknowledging  not  merely 
his  Messiahship,  but  his  divinity.  Truly ^  really,  implies  that  he  had 
previously  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  Such  an  acknowledgment 
might  seem  too  much  for  an}^  but  his  most  enlightened  followers,  if  it 
had  not  been  already  made  by  evil  spirits.  (See  above,  on  8,  29,  and 
compare  4,  3.  6.)  It  is  not  easy  to  determine  in  such  cases,  how  much 
meaning  was  attached  to  this  mysterious  title.  On  the  whole,  how¬ 
ever,  it  is  probable  that  those  whom  Matthew  calls  the  (^people)  in  the 
ship  were  identical  with  those  whom  Mark  calls  the  disciples.  (See 
above,  on  8,  27,  where  a  kindred  form  of  speech  is  used  by  Matthew.) 

34.  And  when  they  were  gone  over,  they  came  into 
the  land  of  Gennesaret. 

And  haring  crossed  (the  lake,  from  east  to  west)  they  came  to  (or 
upon)  the  land  of  Oennesaret^  a  small  district  four  miles  long  and 
two  or  three  wide,  on  the  west  side  of  the  sea  of  Galilee,  or  lake  of 
Tiberias,  to  which  it  gave  one  of  its  names.  (See  above,  on  v.  1  and 
on  4,  18.)  Josephus  describes  this  district  as  the  garden  of  the  whole 


404 


\ 


MATTHEW  14,34.35.36. 

land  and  possessing  a  fertility  and  loveliness  almost  unparalleled. 
Capernaum  appears  to  have  been  in  or  very  near  this  delightful  region, 
so  that  John  (6,  17)  describes  this  same  voyage  as  a  voyage  to  Caper¬ 
naum. 

35.  And  when  the  men  of  that  place  had  knowledge 
of  him,  they  sent  ont  into  all  that  country  round  about, 
and  brought  unto  him  all  that  were  diseased  ; 

The  men  of  that  place  hnoioing  (or  recognizing)  whom  they 
had  often  seen  before,  as  they  lived  so  near  his  home  and  the  centre  of 
his  operations.  (See  above,  on  4,  13.  11,  23.)  It  is  an  interesting 
thought,  very  often  incidentally  suggested  in  the  gospels,  that  during 
the  three  years  of  our  Saviour’s  public  ministry,  his  person  must  have 
become  perfectly  familiar  to  the  great  mass  of  tlie  population,  at  least 
in  Galilee.  This,  with  the  certainty  that  he  retains  hfs  human  body, 
and  is  to  appear  in  it  hereafter  upon  earth  as  he  already  does  in  heaven, 
should  preserve  us  from  a  tendency  to  look  upon  all  sensible  and  bodily 
associations  with  the  person  of  our  Lord  as  superstitious  and  irreve¬ 
rent,  an  error  into  which  some  devout  believers  are  betrayed  by  their 
aversion  to  the  opposite  extreme  of  gross  familiarity  and  levity  in 
speaking  of  his  glorified  humanity.  That  lehole  surrounding  country y 
an  expression  used  in  3,  5,  and  there  explained. 

36.  And  besought  him  that  thy  might  only  touch 
the  hem  of  his  garment  :  and  as  many  as  touched  were 
made  perfectly  whole. 

This  desire  was  only  superstitious  so  far  as  it  ascribed  a  magical 
efiect  to  the  mere  touch,  or  regarded  contact  as  essential  to  the  healing 
power  of  the  Saviour’s  word.  It  may  have  been  his  purpose  to  reach 
greater  numbers  in  a  given  time  without  destroying  all  perceptible 
connection  between  the  subject  and  the  worker  of  the  miracle.  (Com¬ 
pare  Acts  5,  15.  19,  12.)  This  is  not  a  mere  repetition  of  the  state¬ 
ment  in  8, 16.  but  designed  to  show  that  throughout  the  course  as  well 
as  at  the  opening  of  our  Saviour’s  ministry,  his  miracles  were  many, 
those  recorded  in  detail  being  only  a  few  selected  samples,  and  also 
that  his  constant  practice  was  to  heal  all  who  needed  and  desired  it. 
Made  perfectly  whole^  literally,  saved  through^  brought  through  safe, 
i.  e.  through  the  danger  or  the  suffering  to  which  they  were  subjected. 
We  are  here  brought  back  to  the  main  theme  of  the  history,  to  wit,  the 
itinerant  ministry  of  Christ  in  Galilee,  to  which  the  evangelist  repeatedly 
reverts,  as  soon  as  he  has  finished  any  of  the  special  topics  comprehend¬ 
ed  in  the  plan  of  his  gospel.  We  have  such  a  description  after  the  pre¬ 
liminaries  in  the  four  first  chapters  (4, 24)  ;  after  the  sermon  on  the  mount 
and  the  series  of  miracles  which  follows  it  (9,  35)  ;  after  the  organiza¬ 
tion  and  commission  of  the  apostolic  body  (11,  1)  ;  and  now  again  after 
the  formation  of  a  sj^steraatic  opposition,  the  exemplification  of  our 


MATTHEW  15,1. 


405 


Saviour’s  parabolic  teaching,  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist,  the  great 
creative  miracle  of  feeding  the  five  thousand,  and  the  threefold  miracle 
of  walking  on  the  water,  saving  Peter,  and  delivering  the  ship  from 
danger.  We  have  thus  reached  a  resting-place,  at  which,  without  ca¬ 
pricious  violence,  the  book  may  be  conveniently  divided. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

After  the  manner  of  the  best  historians,  Matthew  now  resumes  the 
history  of  Christ’s  relations  and  behaviour  to  his  enemies,  especially 
the  great  Pharisaic  party,  taking  up  the  subject  where  he  laid  it  down, 
at  the  close  of  the  twelfth  chapter,  for  the  purpose  of  exemplifying  his 
peculiar  mode  of  teaching  the  doctrine  of  his  kingdom.  He  now  re¬ 
cords  a  fresh  attack  of  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes  upon  his  unceremo¬ 
nial  practice  with  respect  to  their  traditional  exaggeration  and  perver¬ 
sion  of  the  Levitical  purifications,  with  a  full  report  of  our  Lord’s  author¬ 
itative  teachings  on  the  subject,  both  in  public  and  private,  to  his  own 
disciples  (1— 20^  Connected  with  this,  not  only  by  immediate  chrono¬ 
logical  succession,  but  in  historical  design  and  import,  is  the  narrative 
of  his  one  recorded  visit  to  the  Gentile  world,  with  a  miracle  of  dis¬ 
possession  there  performed  upon  a  Gentile  subject,  and  among  the  most 
interesting  in  the  Gospels,  both  for  this  and  other  reasons  (21-28). 
Departing  from  his  ordinary  practice  of  detailing  only  select  miracles, 
and  those  the  most  dissimilar,  the  evangelist  here  records  a  second  in¬ 
stance  in  which  Christ  miraculously  fed  a  multitude  of  people,  for  the 
very  reason  that  the  repetition  of  a  wonder  so  stupendous  entitled  it  to 
be  again  related  (29-39). 

1.  Then  came  to  Jesus  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  which 
were  of  Jerusalem,  saying. 

The  immediate  succession  of  events  is  not  explicitly  affirmed  but 
highly  probably  from  the  marked  chronological  character  of  the  whole 
context  both  in  Mark  and  Matthew,  though  the  first  words  hero  {the'ti 
came  to  Jesus)^  in  themselves  considered,  might  refer  to  an  entirely 
different  time  and  occasion.  Scribes  and  Pharisees^  not  wholly  distinct 
classes,  but  the  great  religious  party  previously  mentioned,  with  its 
official  or  professional  leaders.  The  Scribes,  or  guardians  and  ex¬ 
pounders  of  the  law,  were  generally  Pharisees  and  often  Priests  or 
Lovites.  See  above,  on  2, 4.  5,  20.  12,  38,  and  compare  John  1,  19.  24.) 
‘  Then  came  to  him  the  Scribes  and  (other)  Pharisees.’  The}''  are  both 
described  SiSjrom  Jerusalem,  which  may  either  mean  belonging  to  the 
Holy  City  (see  above  on  2,  1.  4,  25),  or  recently  come  down  from  it, 
as  expressly  stated  by  Mark  (7,  1).  It  has  even  been  supposed  to  de- 


m 


MATTHEW  15,1.2.3. 


note  a  formal  deputation  from  the  Sanhedrim  like  that  to  John  the 
Baptist  (John  1,  19),  and  to  Christ  himself  long  afterwards  (see  below, 
on  21,  23).  But  this,  though  possible,  is  not  the  necessary  meaning 
of  the  words.  To  Jesus  may  suggest,  though  it  docs  not  formally  ex¬ 
press,  the  idea  of  hostility  {against  him). 

2.  Why  do  thy  disciples  transgress  the  tradition  of 
the  elders  ?  for  they  wash  not  their  hands  when  they  eat 
bread. 

While  Mark  (7,  3-5)  states  with  great  particularity  the  Phari¬ 
saic  usage  as  to  washings,  Matthew  assumes  it  as  already  well 
known  to  his  Jewish  readers.  This  is  one  of  many  proofs  that 
they  wrote  immediately  for  different  classes.  Why.,  literally,  for 
(i.  e.  on  account  of)  what  (cause  or  reason),  as  in  9,11.  14.  13,  10. 
Thy  disciples,  pupils,  learners,  so  called  because  taught  by  thee, 
for  whose  behaviour  thou  art  consequently  answerable.  This  is  the 
obvious  spirit  of  the  question,  though  civility  or  cowardice  re¬ 
stricted  it  in  form  to  the  disciples.  The  question,  as  in  all  such  cases 
(see  above,  on  9,  11.  14),  though  professedly  a  mere  request  for  ex¬ 
planation,  is  in  fact  a  challenge  or  demand  by  what  right  they  thus 
acted,  and  by  implication  a  denial  that  they  had  any  right  to  do  so. 
Whether  disciples  has  its  wider  or  its  stricter  application,  is  a  point  of 
no  exegetical  importance,  as  the  meaning  of  the  question  is  the  same 
in  either  case.  Transgress,  violate,  a  form  of  expression  claiming  the 
authority  of  law  for  these  traditions  of  the  elders.  Tradition  means 
originally  any  thing  delivered,  in  the  way  of  precept  (see  1  Cor.  11,  2. 
2  Thess.  2,  15.  3,  6),  but  is  specially  applied  to  what  is  orally  trans¬ 
mitted  through  successive  generations.  Elders  may  here  have  its 
official  sense  and  designate  the  natural  hereditary  chiefs  of  Israel,  as  in 
16,  21  below  and  often  elsewhere.  It  will  then  denote  the  contem¬ 
porary  rulers  of  the  Jews,  by  whose  authority  these  uncommanded 
customs  were  enforced.  More  probably,  however,  there  is  reference 
also  to  the  fathers  of  the  nation,  from  whom  the  oral  law  had  been 
transmitted.  (See  above,  on  5,  21,  and  compare  Gal.  1. 14.)  For  (in¬ 
troducing  a  specification  of  this  general  charge)  they  wash  not  their 
hands  when  they  eat  loread,  in  the  strict  sense,  or  partake  of  food  in 
general,  as  bread  was  its  principal  though  not  its  sole  material  in  the 
case  of  the  disciples.  (See  above,  on  4,  3.  4.  C,  11.  7,  9.)  The  refer¬ 
ence  in  this  whole  context  is  to  washing,  not  as  a  means  of  cleanliness, 
but  as  a  ceremonial  or  religious  act,  an  uncommanded  and  traditional 
perversion  of  the  legal  ablutions  or  levitical  purifications,  as  prescribed 
in  Lev.  xii-xv,  and  restricted  to  certain  states  of  body  representing  the 
defilement  of  sin,  but  by  the  so-called  oral  law  extended  without  mean¬ 
ing  to  the  most  familiar  acts  of  life  and  even  to  the  furniture  of  houses. 
(See  Mark  7,  3.  4.) 

3.  But  he  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Why  do  ye 


MATTHEW  15,3.4.  407 

also  transgress  the  commandment  of  God  by  your  tradi¬ 
tion  ? 

Without  denying  their  charge,  he  retorts  it,  with  a  fearful  aggrava¬ 
tion.  ‘  What  if  my  disciples  do  break  the  tradition  of  the  elders  ;  you 
do  infinitely  worse  by  breaking  God’s  commandment  for  the  sake  of 
that  tradition.’  Ye  also,  you  too,  as  well  as  they,  are  chargeable  with 
such  a  violation,  and  that  not  of  a  human  usage,  but  of  a  divine  law. 
By  your  tradition,  an  inaccurate  translation,  founded  upon  that  of  Tyn- 
dale  (thorowe  your  tradition),  whereas  all  the  other  English  versions 
(except  that  of  the  Geneva  Bible)  give  the  true  sense  of  the  preposition 
(Sm)  with  the  accusative  (Wiclif  and  Eheims,  for ;  Cranmer,  because 
of).  The  meaning  of  the  common  version  is  a  good  one,  but  not  that 
of  the  original,  which  represents  their  tradition  as  the  motive,  not  the 
means,  of  their  transgressing  the  divine  commandment.  The  same 
idea  is  otherwise  expressed  by  Mark  (7,  9),  “  ye  reject  the  command¬ 
ment  of  God,  that  ye  may  keep  your  own  tradition.”  Both  forms  of 
speech  may  have  been  actually  used ;  or  both  may  simply  give  the 
substance  of  our  Saviour’s  answer ;  or  one  may  give  its  substance  and 
the  other  its  form. 

4.  For  God  commanded,  saying,  Honour  thy  father  and 
mother  :  and,  He  that  curseth  father  or  mother,  let  him 
die  the  death. 

Not  only  in  this  one  case  of  ceremonial  baptisms  did  they  thus  re¬ 
ject  and  nullify  God’s  precept,  but  in  others  of  far  more  importance, 
because  relating  not  to  rites  but  moral  duties,  not  to  the  abuse  of  posi¬ 
tive  and  temporary  institutions,  but  to  the  neglect  of  the  most  tender 
natural  relations.  Of  this  he  gives  a  single  instance,  but  a  most  afiect- 
ing  one,  which  utters  volumes  as  to  the  spirit  and  the  tendency  of 
Pharisaic  superstition.  The  sum  and  substance  of  it  is  that  the  ob¬ 
servance  of  their  vain  tradition  was  considered  and  enforced  by  them 
as  more  obligatory  than  the  sacred  duty  which  the  child  owes  to  the 
parent,  by  the  law  of  nature  and  the  law  of  God.  For  God  command¬ 
ed,  i.  e.  through  Moses  (Mark  7,  10).  In  these  two  parallels  we  have 
the  clearest  recognition  of  the  code  or  system  quoted  in  the  next  clause 
as  the  work  of  Moses  and  the  law  of  God.  He  then  quotes  the  first 
or  preceptive  clause  of  the  fifth  commandment  (Ex.  20, 12.  Deut.  5, 
IG),  leaving  out  the  promise  or  inducement  as  irrelevant  to  his  present 
purpose,  which  relates  exclusively  to  the  precept,  but  substituting  for 
it  the  severe  law  inflicting  capital  punishment  on  those  who  carried 
filial  disobedience  to  the  length  of  cursing  or  reviling,  literally,  speak¬ 
ing  evil  of,  the  opposite,  both  in  etymology  and  usage,  of  the  verb  em¬ 
ployed  above  in  5,  44.  14, 19,  and  there  explained.  Though  here  in 
strong  antithesis  to  honour,  it  does  not  directly  mean  to  dishonour,  but 
denotes  specifically  one  of  the  easiest  and  worst  ways  of  doing  so,  to 
wit,  by  abusive  and  insulting  language.  Whoso  curseth,  literally,  the 


408 


MATTHEW  15,4.5. 


{one  or  the  man')  cursing  (or  reriling)  father  or  mother^  an  indefinite 
form  used  by  both  evangelists,  and  difiering  alike  from  the  original  and 
the  Septuagint  version,  both  which  have  the  pronoun  ifhy).  This 
exact  agreement  in  so  slight  a  ditference  is  not  to  be  explained  by  the 
hypothesis  of  servile  imitation  or  transcription  on  the  part  of  either, 
but  by  the  supposition  that  these  were  the  very  words  (or  their  exact 
equivalents)  which  Jesus  uttered,  and  which  therefore  must  have  some 
significance,  however  faint  the  shade  of  meaning  which  they  may  ex¬ 
press.  That  they  do  express  one  must  be  felt  by  every  reader  even  of 
a  literal  translation,  though  it  is  not  easy  to  subject  it  to  analysis  or 
definition.  Perhaps  it  may  be  simply  stated  thus,  that  the  definite  ex¬ 
pression  in  the  other  'clause  {thy  father  and  thy  mother)  and  in  the 
original  of  this  clause  {liis  father  and  his  mother)  is  designed  to  indi¬ 
vidualize,  before  the  mind  of  every  hearer  or  reader  of  the  law,  the 
very  pair  to  whom  he  owes  allegiance,  while  the  vaguer  phrase  here 
used  {father  or  mother)  rather  calls  up  the  idea  of  parents  in  general 
as  a  class  or  species,  but  so  as  rather  to  enhance  than  to  extenuate  their 
claims  upon  their  children,  by  presenting  those  claims  in  the  abstract 
and  the  aggregate.  As  if  he  had  said.  ‘  he  who  can  dishonour  by  his 
curses  such  a  sacred  object  as  a  father  or  a  mother.’  Let  him  die  the 
death,  Cranmer’s  imitation  of  the  Hebrew  idiom  which  combines  a 
finite  tense  and  an  infinitive  of  the  same  verb  to  express  intensity,  rep¬ 
etition,  certainty,  or  any  other  accessory  notion  not  belonging  to  the 
essential  import  of  the  verb  itself.  In  the  original  passage  our  trans¬ 
lators  have  expressed  the  qualifying  adjunct  (that  of  certainty)  without 
copying  the  form  (shall  surely  he  put  to  death),  while  here  the  form  is 
rendered  prominent  by  a  pretty  close  approximation  to  the  Hebrew  in 
the  combination  of  the  cognate  verb  and  noun,  a  modification  of  the 
idiom  not  unknown  in  other  languages.  The  imitation  is  indeed  much 
closer  than  in  Greek,  where  the  verb  is  not  the  ordinary  verb  to  die, 
but  one  which  originally  means  to  end  ov  finish,  often  joined  with  life, 
and  then  elliptically  used  without  it  to  express  the  same  idea  (that  of 
ending  life  or  dying).  The  strict  translation  of  the  whole  phrase  there¬ 
fore  would  be,  let  him  end  with  death  ;  the  meaning  both  of  it  and  of 
the  Hebrew,  let  him  surely  die.  Tyndale  has  simply,  shall  suffer 
death  ;  the  Khemish  version,  dy  ing  he  shall  die. 


5.  But  ye  say,  Whosoever  shall  say  to  (his)  father  or 
(his)  mother,  (It  is)  a  gift,  by  whatsoever  thou  mightest 
he  profited  by  me  ; 

The  antithesis  is  still  kept  up  between  what  God  said  and  what 
they  said,  both  being  put  into  the  form  of  a  command  or  laAv.  Having 
given  that  of  God,  with  its  tremendous  sanction  in  the  verse  preceding, 
he  now  contrasts  with  it  that  of  the  traditional  or  oral  lawyers.  But 
(on  the  other  hand,  on  your  part)  ye  say,  not  in  so  many  words,  per¬ 
haps  not  formally  at  all,  but  practically  by  what  you  encourage  and 
allow,  both  in  yourselves  and  others.  It  pleased  our  Lord  to  put  the 


MATTHEW  15,5.6. 


409 


gpirifc  of  their  conduct  and  of  the  system  upon  which  it  rested  into  this 
technical  and  formal  shape,  in  order  more  completely  to  expose  its 
wickedness  and  folly.  Shall  say  is  too  categorical  and  positive  a  version 
of  the  aorist  subjunctive  which  denotes  a  hypothetical  contingency,  or 
something  which  may  happen  or  may  not.  To  his  father  or  mother, 
literally,  the  father  or  the  mother,  the  pronoun  being  still  omitted,  as 
in  v.  4,  but  the  article  inserted.  A  gift,  a  word  denoting  gifts  in  gen¬ 
eral  but  specifically  used  in  Homeric  and  Hellenistic  Greek  to  mean  a 
votive  offering  or  a  gift  to  God.  In  this  restricted  sense  it  answers  to 
the  Hebrew  corhan,  here  retained  (Mark  7,  11),  which  according  to  its 
etymology  means  any  thing  brought  near  or  presented,  but  in  usage 
what  is  thus  brought  near  to  God.  In  this  sense,  it  is  applied,  like  the 
corresponding  verb,  to  all  the  offerings  of  the  Mosaic  ritual,  animal  and 
vegetable,  bloody  and  bloodless.  (See  Lev.  2,  1.  4.  12.  13.  7, 13.  9,  7. 
15.)  In  the  later  Hebrew  and  Chaldee,  it  was  applied  still  more  ex¬ 
tensively  to  all  religious  offerings,  even  those  not  sacrificial,  but  not  to 
these  exclusively,  as  some  allege.  This  one  word  seems  to  have  been 
the  prescribed  form  in  such  cases,  so  that  by  simply  saying  “  Corban,” 
a  man  might  devote  the  whole  or  any  part  of  his  possessions  to  relig¬ 
ious  uses,  i.  e.  to  the  maintenance  of  the  temple  service  by  the  purchase 
of  victims  or  the  sustentation  of  the  priests  and  Levites.  Whatever 
thou  (the  parent  thus  addressed)  mightest  he  profited  hy  me  (i.  e.  what¬ 
ever  assistance  or  advantage  thou  mightest  have  derived  from  me)  is 
Corban  or  devoted  to  religious  uses  like  a  sacrificial  victim.  That  such 
things  were  permitted  and  applauded  may  be  proved  by  certain  dicta 
of  the  Talmud,  and  especially  by  a  famous  dispute  between  Rabbi  Eli- 
ezer  and  his  brethren,  in  which  the  very  act  here  described  was  vindi- 
dicated  by  the  latter. 

6.  And  honour  not  his  father  or  his  mother,  (he  shall 
he  free).  Thus  have  ye  made  the  commandment  of  God 
of  none  effect  hy  your  tradition. 

The  division  of  the  verses  varies  here  in  the  editions  of  the  Greek 
and  English  text,  the  former  making  what  is  here  the  first  clause  of 
V.  6  the  last  clause  of  v.  5,  without  effect  upon  the  sense,  but  with 
advantage  to  the  syntax.  The  English  version  makes  this  clause  a 
part  of  what  they  said,  and  still  dependent  on  the  conditional  phrase, 
whosoever  says  (or  shall  say).  ^  Whoever  says  this  to  his  parents  and 
refuses  or  neglects  to  honour  them.’  There  is  then  an  instance  of  the 
figure  called  aposiopesis,  in  which  the  apodosis,  or  logical  conclusion 
of  the  sentence,  is  suppressed  or  left  to  be  supplied  by  the  reader.  Such 
constructions,  whether  beauties  or  defects,  occur  in  the  best  classical 
writers.  The  thought  here  supplied  by  the  translators  (in  italics)  is, 
he  shall  he  free  (i,  e.  to  do  so,  or  from  punishment),  in  other  words,  he 
does  no  wrong,  he  does  his  duty.  Another  construction,  found  in  Tyn- 
dale’s  version,  and  preferred  by  some  philological  authorities  of  later 
date,  makes  this  clause  our  Lord’s  own  statement  of  the  consequence 

18 


410 


MATTHEW  15,6.7.8. 


(and  so  shall  he  not  honour).  This,  however,  still  supposes  an  aposio* 
pesis  in  a  different  place,  i.  e.  before  instead  of  after  the  clause  now  in 
question.  Having  given  this  revolting  instance  of  the  practical  result 
to  which  their  treatment  of  God’s  precepts  tended,  he  returns  to  the 
generic  charge  which  it  was  stated  to  illustrate.  Thus  (literally  and) 
made  roid.^  invalidated,  nullified,  a  verb  not  used  in  classic  Greek, 
but  formed  directly  from  an  adjective  familiarly  applied  by  Plato  and 
Thucydides  to  laws,  and  representing  them  (according  to  its  etymol¬ 
ogy)  as  destitute  of  force,  invalid,  null  and  void.  This  was  the  actual 
effect,  whatever  may  have  been  the  purpose,  of  their  ceremonial  and  tra¬ 
ditional  morality,  by  which  they  practically  nullified  the  divine  com¬ 
mandment.  By  your  tradition  should  again  be  for  (the  sake  or  on 
account  of)  your  tradition.  The  address  may  be  either  to  the  whole 
race  as  represented  by  his  hearers,  or  to  themselves  as  delivering  and 
enforcing  these  traditions  by  authority. 

7.  (Ye)  hypocrites,  well  did  Esaias  prophesy  of  you, 
saying, 

8.  This  people  draweth  nigh  unto  me  with  their 
mouth,  and  honoureth  me  with  (their)  lips  ;  but  their 
heart  is  far  from  me. 

Hypocrites,  a  Greek  noun  originally  meaning  one  who  answers  or 
responds,  with  particular  allusion  to  oracular  responses,  explanations, 
and  advices  ;  then  one  who  answers  in  a  colloquy  or  conversation,  with 
particular  allusion  to  dramatic  dialogue ;  then  one  who  acts  upon  the 
stage,  an  actor ;  then  metaphorically  one  who  acts  a  borrowed  part ; 
and  lastly,  a  dissembler,  a  deceiver,  one  whose  words  and  actions  do 
not  indicate  his  real  thoughts  and  feelings.  This  last  sense  of  the  noun, 
the  only  one  which  it  retains  in  modern  languages,  is  not  found  in  the 
classics ;  but  the  primitive  or  corresponding  verb  meant  to  dissemble 
at  least  as  early  as  Demosthenes  and  Polybius.  It  is  doubtful,  how¬ 
ever,  whether  the  noun,  even  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  has 
always  the  strong  sense  which  later  usage  puts  upon  it,  and  which 
sometimes  does  not  seem  entireb^-  appropriate,  as  in  Luke  12,  56,  and 
here,  in  both  which  places  the  connection  agrees  better  with  the  older 
sense  of  one  who  acts  a  part,  who  w'ears  a  mask,  who  is  contented  with 
an  outside  show,  including  not  deliberate  deceivers  merely,  but  the  self- 
deceived,  or  those  who  really  mistake  the  outward  for  the  inward,  the 
apparent  for  the  real.  Well,  not  truly  or  correctly,  which  would  be 
superfiuous  as  an  encomium  on  an  inspired  prophecy,  both  here  and  in 
Acts  28,  25,  where  Paul  applies  the  same  term  to  the  Holy  Ghost  him¬ 
self;  but  finely,  admirably,  or  appropriately,  exactly,  in  allusion  to  the 
singular  coincidence  between  Isaiah’s  inspired  description  of  his  own 
contemporaries  and  the  character  and  conduct  of  their  children’s  chil¬ 
dren  in  the  time  of  Christ.  It  is  not  however  a  mere  accommodation 
of  the  passage  to  a  foreign  subject,  since  Isaiah’s  words  are  not  con- 


411 


MATTHEW  15,8.9.10. 

fined  to  those  whom  they  immediately  described  5  but  this  very  fact, 
that  a  description  could  be  so  framed  as  to  represent  with  equal  fidel¬ 
ity  originals  who  lived  so  many  centuries  apart,  is  itself  a  proof  of  in¬ 
spiration  and  a  ground  for  the  applause  and  admiration  here  expressed. 
Esaias  is  the  Greek  form  of  Isaiah^  Y\kQ  Elias  for  Elijah  in  11, 14.  As 
Isaiah  itself  is  a  modification  of  the  Hebrew  form  (Jeshaiah,  JesJiaiahu), 
it  would  have  been  better  to  employ  either  it  or  the  Greek  Esaias  in 
the  version  of  both  Testaments,^  the  variation  of  the  name  confusing 
uninstructed  readers.  This  is  still  more  true  of  Jesus^  the  Greek  form 
of  Joshua^  when  used  to  designate  the  Son  of  Man  (as  in  Acts  7,  45. 
Heb.  4,  8).  Bid  Isaiah  ^ro'phesy^  of  old,  so  long  ago.  Of  (i.  e. 
about,  concerning)  you^^  should  be  connected  with  the  adverb,  ueU. 
The  meaning  is  not  that  the  Jews  of  Christ’s  time  were  the  for¬ 
mal  and  the  direct  theme  of  the  prophecy,  which  would  not  have 
been  spoken  of  as  so  remarkable,  but  rather  that  in  speaking  of  his 
own  contemporaries,  he  drew  an  admirable  picture  of  their  chil¬ 
dren  in  the  time  of  Christ.  But  although  this  does  not  require  us  to 
interpret  the  original  passage  as  a  specific  and  exclusive  prophecy  re¬ 
specting  Christ’s  contemporaries,  it  does  require  us  to  interpret  it  so  as 
to  include  them,  which  can  only  be  secured  by  making  it  descriptive  of 
the  unbelieving  Jews,  not  at  one  time  merely,  but  throughout  the  period 
of  the  old  dispensation,  an  assumption  perfectly  confirmed  by  history. 
The  quotation  is  a  free  one  from  the  Septuagint  version  of  Isa.  29, 13, 
the  variations  being  unimportant  to  the  Saviour’s  purpose.  Is  far  from 
me,  in  Hebrew,  it  remores  far  from  me ;  but  this  variation  is  found 
also  in  the  Septuagint. 


9.  But  in  vain  they  do  worship  me^  teaching  (for) 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men. 

But  (or  and)^  the  usual  connective  (Se)?  hz.  rain  they  icorship  me^  a 
thought  implied  though  not  expressed  in  the  original,  and  therefore 
not  improperly  supplied  by  the  Seventy  and  sanctioned  by  our  Lord 
or  his  biographers.  The  literal  translation  of  the  Hebrew  words  is, 
and  their  fearing  me  (i.  e.  their  worship)  is  (or  has  become)  a  precept 
of  men,  a  thing  taught.  This  taken  by  itself  might  seem  to  mean  that 
they  served  God  merely  in  obedience  to  human  authority,  and  would 
then  imply  no  censure  on  the  persons  thus  commanding,  but  only  on 
the  motives  of  those  by  whom  they  were  obeyed.  But  in  our  Saviour’s 
application  of  the  passage  to  the  hypocrites  of  his  day,  he  has  reference 
particularly  to  religious  teachers,  as  corrupting  the  law  by  their  un¬ 
authorized  additions. 

10.  And  he  called  the  multitude,  and  said  unto  them, 
Hear,  and  understand  : 

Thus  far  he  had  addressed  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  themselves, 
but  now  invokes  a  larger  audience.  And  calling  to  the  crowd,  i.  e.  ad- 


412 


MATTHEW  15,10,11. 


dressing  them,  or  calling  the  croicd  to  (him),  as  in  10, 1,  which  does 
not  necessarily  imply  a  change  of  place,  but  merely  a  request  for  their 
particular  attention,  as  expressed  in  the  last  clause.  Still  less  is  it  im¬ 
plied  that  the  multitude  at  large  had  not  heard  what  is  said  in  the  pre¬ 
ceding  context.  All  that  is  meant  is  that,  after  having  answered  the 
demand  of  his  opponents  in  the  presence  of  the  people,  he  now  calls  the 
attention  of  the  latter  to  the  same  great  subject,  as  one  of  practical  and 
universal  interest,  because  relating  to  the  very  principle  of  all  moral¬ 
ity.  Hear  me^  listen  to  me,  not  an  unmeaning  form,  but  a  distinct  in¬ 
timation  that  he  had  something  of  importance  to  communicate  (see 
above,  on  11, 15.  13,  9.  18.  43).  And  understand,  give  intelligent  at¬ 
tention,  not  merely  to  my  words  but  to  their  meaning. 

11.  Not  that  which  goeth  into  the  month  defileth  a 
man  ;  hut  that  which  cometh  out  of  the  mouth,  this  de¬ 
fileth  a  man. 

Having  exposed  the  folly  of  the  prevalent  ceremonial  superstition  as 
to  uncommanded  baptisms  or  religious  washings,  and  its  wickedness  in 
setting  aside  moral  obligations,  the  Saviour  now  pursues  the  same 
course  in  a  still  more  public  manner  with  respect  to  the  most  prevalent 
and  favourite  of  all  merely  ritual  distinctions,  that  of  clean  and  unclean 
meats,  which  had  then  become,  and  still  continues,  the  chief  bar  to  so¬ 
cial  intercourse  between  Jews  and  Gentiles.  The  very  object  of  the 
law  upon  this  subject  (as  recorded  in  Lev.  xi.  and  Heut.  xiv.)  was  to 
separate  the  chosen  race  from  every  other  by  restrictions  on  their  food 
which  should  render  it  impossible  for  them  to  live  together,  or  to  inter¬ 
change  the  ordinary  courtesies  of  life,  without  a  constant  violation, 
upon  one  side,  of  religious  duty.  This  effect  had  been  abundantly  se¬ 
cured  for  ages  in  the  practice  of  all  conscientious  Jews,  but  with  the 
necessary  incidental  evil  of  a  constant  disposition,  even  on  the  part  of 
such,  to  mistake  a  positive  and  temporary  regulation  for  a  perpetual 
invariable  law,  and  to  regard  the  forbidden  meats  as  having  an  intrin¬ 
sic  efiQcacy  to  defile,  not  only  ceremonially  but  morally.  In  opposition  to 
this  groundless  and  pernicious  error,  Christ  propounds  the  simple 
truth,  but  in  a  form  adapted  to  arrest  the  popular  attention  and  impress 
itself  upon  the  memory  by  something  of  antithesis  and  even  paradox. 
A  man,  literally,  the  man,  which  may  either  be  the  Greek  equivalent 
to  our  generic  “  man  ’’  without  the  article,  or  be  taken  strictly  as  de¬ 
noting  the  particular  man  eating  or  receiving  food  in  any  supposed  case. 
Entering  into  the  mouth,  i.  e.  as  food  or  nourishment.  Defiles  him, 
literally,  mahes  him  common  or  'profane.  This  expression  is  derived 
from  the  ceremonial  law,  by  which  the  Jews  were  separated  from  the 
other  nations,  and  their  sacred  rites  and  utensils  from  all  things, 
even  of  the  same  kind,  which  had  not  been  thus  sanctified  or  set 
apart  to  sacred  uses  as  distinguished  from  all  secular  and  common 
uses.  Hence  arises  the  antithesis,  at  first  sight  so  surprising,  be¬ 
tween  holy  and  common.  But  (the  other  branch  of  the  antithesis) 


MATTHEW  15,11.12. 


415 


the  {thing)  coming  out  of^  proceeding  from  (the  exact  correlative  or 
oppdkite,  in  form  as  well  as  sense,  of  the  preceding  verb),  the  mouth 
in  language,  or  more  generally  in  conduct,  as  the  expression  of 
thoughts  and  character.  The  paradoxical  character  of  this  important 
statement  arises  from  its  solemnly  affirming  in  a  moral  sense,  what  was 
not  true  if  taken  in  a  ceremonial  sense,  and  therefore  might  at  first 
sight  seem,  and  did  no  doubt  to  many  seem,  directly  contradictory  to 
an  express  divine  commandment.  But  this  only  deepened  the  impres¬ 
sion  of  the  true  sense  when  discovered  or  revealed,  as  in  all  the  para¬ 
doxes  which  may  be  said  to  form  a  striking  characteristic  of  our  Sa¬ 
viour’s  teachings,  but  wdiich  no  mere  man,  at  least  no  uninspired  man, 
can  imitate  without  the  risk  of  doing  far  more  harm  than  good,  and  of 
adding  one  more  instance  to  the  many  which  illustrate  and  confirm 
the  fact  that  fools  rush  in  where  angels  fear  to  tread.”  What  our 
Saviour  here  denies  is  not  that  the  partaking  of  forbidden  meats  was 
ceremonially  defiling,  i.  e.  subjected  those  who  did  so  to  certain  cere¬ 
monial  disabilities  and  rendered  necessary  certain  rites  of  purification  ; 
for  all  this  was  explicitly  revealed  in  scripture  and  embodied  in  the 
practice  of  the  Jewish  church  from  the  very  beginning  of  the  ceremo¬ 
nial  dispensation,  which  was  not  yet  at  an  end.  Nor  does  he  here  deny 
that  by  transgressing  this  part  of  the  law  a  man  incurred  the  moral 
guilt  of  disobedience,  which  would  have  opened  a  wide  door  to  lawless 
and  ungodly  license.  It  is  not  the  authority  or  obligation  of  the  pre¬ 
cept  that  he  calls  in  question,  but  its  ground  and  purpose,  as  usually 
apprehended  by  the  people  and  expounded  by  their  spiritual  leaders. 
Certain  meats  had  been  prohibited  by  Moses  under  the  divine  direction, 
for  a  temporary  end  of  great  importance  but  ere  long  to  be  forever  su¬ 
perseded,  i.  c.  to  secure  the  separation  of  the  Jews  from  other  races  till 
the  change  of  dispensations,  and  in  the  mean  time  to  symbolize  the 
difference  between  heathenish  corruptions  and  the  holiness  which  ought 
to  have  adorned  the  church  or  chosen  people.  But  by  gradual  depart¬ 
ure  from  this  clearly  revealed  purpose  of  the  legal  prohibitions  now^  in 
question,  they  had  come  to  look  upon  the  unclean  meats  as  jper  se 
morally  defiling,  and  by  necessary  consequence,  upon  the  strict  use  of 
the  clean  meats  as  intrinsically  purifying,  or  at  least  meritorious  in  the 
sight  of  God.  This  is  the  error  here  refuted  or  condemned,  and  not 
obedience  to  the  dietetic  laws  of  Moses  while  the  system  was  still  bind¬ 
ing,  upon  which  these  wmrds  of  Christ  have  neither  a  remote  nor  an 
immediate  bearing,  as  some  eminent  interpreters  imagine,  and  as  many 
of  his  hearers  no  doubt  thought  at  that  time,  notAvithstanding  the  ad¬ 
monitory  warning  against  inattention  and  misapprehension,  which  we 
learn  from  Mark  (7,  IG)  though  not  from  IMatthew,  that  he  uttered 
upon  this  as  on  so  many  other  similar  occasions. 

12.  Then  came  his  disciples,  and  said  unto  him, 
Knowest  thou  that  the  Pharisees  were  offended,  after 
they  heard  this  saying  ? 

Then^  i.  e.  after  he  had  thus  addressed  the  crowd  or  multitude  at 


414 


MATTHEW  15,12.13.14. 


large,  but  in  the  presence  of  his  Pharisaic  censors.  Coming  up,  or 
coming  to  {liim),  Ms  disciples,  either  in  the  wider  sense  of  those  who 
took  his  part,  were  on  his  side,  received  his  doctrine ;  or  in  the  more 
specific  sense  of  those  who  now  attended  him  from  place  to  place  as 
learners.  These,  with  their  Jewish  habits  and  associations,  would 
naturally  be  disturbed  at  hearing  the  unfriendly  and  disparaging  re¬ 
marks  of  the  leading  men  who  were  present  in  the  audience,  and 
would  no  less  naturally  tell  their  master,  both  as  a  warning  to  him 
and  a  relief  to  their  own  feelings.  Knowest  thou,  in  modern  English 
do  you  know,  are  you  aware  ?  The  question  may  perhaps  imply  that 
if  he  knew  it,  he  would  surely  not  continue  to  exasperate  the  enmity 
of  such  important  men.  After  they  heard,  literally,  having  heard  or 
hearing  not  by  subsequent  report  or  information,  but  upon  the  spot 
and  with  their  own  ears.  Offended,  i.  e.  stumbled,  shocked,  the  figure 
being  that  of  an  obstacle  or  hindrance  lying  in  the  path.  (For  another 
application  of  the  same  essential  meaning,  see  above,  on  5,  29.  30. 

11,  6.  13,  21.  41.  57.)  Wiclif:  thou  knowest  that  if  this  word  be 
heard,  the  Pharisees  ben  sclaundrid  (are  slandered)  !  The  stumbling- 
block  to  these  censorious  hearers  was  the  seeming  nullification  of  the 
laws  of  clean  and  unclean  food,  as  enacted  by  Moses  and  enlarged  by 
the  tradition  of  the  elders. 

13.  But  lie  answered  and  said,  Every  plant,  which  my 
heavenly  Father  hath  not  planted,  shall  be  rooted  up. 

Our  Lord’s  reply  is  twofold.  In  the  first  place,  he  assures  his 
anxious  followers  that  he  had  not  spoken  rashly  or  at  random,  but 
advisedly,  in  execution  of  a  settled  purpose  to  destroy  the  credit  of 
these  oral  lawyers  and  traditional  expounders,  whose  whole  system  of 
additions  to  the  law  was  founded  upon  no  divine  authority,  and  there¬ 
fore  must  be  utterly  destroyed  to  make  way  for  the  purer  doctrine  of 
the  kingdom.  This  necessity  is  stated  in  a  figurative  form  drawn 
from  the  vegetable  world,  and  not  unlike  that  used  in  several  of  the 
parables  before  recorded  (chapter  xiii).  Plant  seems  to  designate 
the  individual,  whereas  Wiclif ’s  version,  fflanting,  more  correctly  ap¬ 
plies  it  to  the  whole  traditional  or  Pharisaic  system,  theoretical  and 
practical. 

14.  Let  them  alone  :  they  be  blind  leaders  of  the 
blind.  And  if  the  blind  lead  the  blind,  both  shall  fall 
into  the  ditch. 

This  is  the  second  part  of  our  Lord’s  answer  to  the  warning  in  v, 

12.  Although  it  was  his  purpose  to  destroy  the  credit  of  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees  as  religious  teachers,  there  was  no  need  of  violence,  nor 
even  of  dispute,  to  bring  about  the  end  which  he  desired.  It  was 
enough  to  let  his  enemies  alone  in  order  to  secure  their  ruin,  and,  alas, 
that  of  many  whom  they  influenced  and  guided.  Both  were  destitute 


MATTHEW  15,  14.  15.  16. 


415 


of  spiritual  vision,  and  must  therefore  share  the  consequences  of  that  des¬ 
titution.  The  physical  effect  was  not  more  certain  in  the  case  supposed 
(of  blind  men  guided  by  a  blind  man)  than  the  moral  effect  in  the  real 
case  represented  by  it.  Let  them  alone^  or  more  exactly,  let  them 
(go  on),  let  them  (do  as  they  are  doing),  leave  them  (to  themselves), 
without  attempting  either  to  arrest  or  to  accelerate  their  progress. 
(For  the  usage  of  the  Greek  verb,  see  above,  on  3,  15.)  Be  is  an  in¬ 
dicative  form  common  in  old  English  and  exactly  equivalent  to  are. 
The  ditch  (or  rather  pit,  hole),  i.  e.  the  one  crossing  the  path  in  the 
case  supposed. 

15.  Then  answered  Peter  and  said  unto  him,  De¬ 
clare  unto  us  this  parable. 

Peter  here  speaks  in  the  name  of  the  disciples,  and  in  the  house 
after  they  had  left  the  multitude  (Mark  7,  17).  Declare.,  the  same 
verb  that  is  so  translated  in  13,  36  above,  though  more  emphatically 
rendered  in  the  Romish  versions  by  the  word  expound.  It  strictly 
means  to  phrase.,  or  express  in  words,  the  idea  of  explanation  being 
really  suggested  by  the  context.  This  parable  might  seem  to  mean 
the  metaphor  or  simile  just  used  in  the  preceding  verse,  to  which  the 
word  is  strictly  applicable,  as  denoting  an  illustration  from  analogy 
(see  above,  on  13,  3).  But  our  Lord’s  answer  (in  the  following  verses) 
seems  to  show  that  the  inquiry  has  respect  to  his  public  declaration  in 
V.  11,  which  can  be  called  o,  parable  only  in  the  vague  sense  of  some¬ 
thing  enigmatical,  not  obvious  in  meaning.  (See  above,  on  13, 35.)  It 
is  possible,  however,  although  not  so  probable,  that  Peter  did  intend  to 
ask  why  our  Lord  compared  the  Pharisees  to  blind  guides,  and  that 
he  answers  indirectly  but  emphatically  by  exposing  the  error  which 
they  entertained  respecting  the  effect  of  food,  and  in  which  the  dis¬ 
ciples  were  still  sharers.  The  plural  form  {unto  us)  shows  that  Peter 
spoke  for  all  the  rest,  which  agrees  with  Mark’s  account,  and  also  with 
our  Lord’s  reply,  which  was  addressed  not  to  Peter,  but  to  the  whole 
company. 


16.  And  Jesus  said,  Are  ye  also  yet  without  under¬ 
standing  ? 

Although  this  is  not  a  harsh  reproof,  it  certainly  involves  a  censure 
on  the  followers  of  Christ  for  their  continued  share  in  the  prevailing 
error  which  he  had  just  refuted  and  denounced.  This  implies  that 
what  they  failed  to  understand  was  not  a  mystery  requiring  special 
revelation  to  disclose  it,  ignorance  of  which  could  not  have  been  con¬ 
demned  as  culpable,  but  something  clear  already,  if  not  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  from  the  word  of  God.  Jesus  said  to  them  (in  answer  to 
their  question  or  request  for  explanation).  Even  ye  (or  ye  also)  my 
most  favoured  and  enlightened  followers.  Yet^  the  accusative  of  the 
noun  acme^  meaning  full  time ;  an  adverb,  just  now  ;  in  later  Greek,  as 
here,  yet^  still.  Without  'understanding.,  in  Greek  a  single  word  which 


416 


MATTHEW  15,10-19. 

might  be  rendered  unintelligent  (the  opposite  in  form  as  well  as  sense 
of  that  employed  in  11,25.  Acts  13,  7.  1  Cor.  1,  19).  It  is  applied 
by  Pai-il  (Eom.  1,  21.  31)  to  the  irrationality  of  sin,  but  also  in  the  same 
epistle  (10, 19)  to  the  ignorance  and  unintelligence  of  heathen  or  bar¬ 
barians. 

17.  Do  not  ye  yet  understand,  that  whatsoever  enter- 
eth  in  at  the  niouth  goeth  into  the  belly,  and  is  cast  out 
into  the  draught  ? 

Do  ye  not  'perceive^  a  verb  applied  by  Homer  and  Xenophon  to 
bodily  vision,  but  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  to  intellectual 
perception  only,  sometimes  with  the  accessory  notion  of  attention  (see 
below,  on  24, 15,  and  compare  2  Tim.  2,  7),  which  maj^also  be  included 
here  (and  in  16,  9  below).  ‘  Are  you  not  sufficiently  attentive  to  per¬ 
ceive  &c.  7  ’  This  again  implies  that  wdiat  they  misconceived  was  no 
mysterious  secret  but  an  obvious  and  patent  truth,  which  they  could 
not  have  attentively  considered  without  justly  apprehending  it,  as  al¬ 
most  self-evident,  although  the  people  had  lost  sight  of  it,  and  even  the 
disciples  did  not  see  it  clearly.  Food  does  not  affect  the  mind  or  soul, 
but  only  the  corporeal  organs,  which  are  not  moral  agents  or  suscepti¬ 
ble  of  moral  changes.  The  helly^  not  the  entire  body,  nor  the  abdomen 
exclusively,  but  the  whole  interior  cavity  (the  Greek  word  originally 
meaning  holloic),  in  which  are  lodged  the  organs  of  digestion  here  espe¬ 
cially  referred  to,  namely,  the  stomach  and  intestines.  Mark  has  pre¬ 
served  the  negative  statement  that  the  food  never  goes  beyond  the  body 
or  reaches  the  mind  or  soul,  by  suggesting  that  the  whole  course  of  the 
aliment,  received  through  the  mouth  into  the  stomach  and  intestines, 
can  be  traced  as  all  exclusively  corporeal,  from  its  entrance  to  its  exit. 
How  absurd  then  to  imagine  that  the  moral  and  spiritual  state  of  man 
can  be  affected  by  the  food  which  he  consumes.  Draughty  drain,  sink, 
or  privy,  a  word  belonging  to  the  later  Greek. 

18.  But  tliose  tilings  which  proceed  out  of  the  mouth 
come  forth  from  the  heart  ;  and  they  defile  the  man. 

This  completes  the  antithesis,  by  adding  to  the  negative  account  of 
what  does  not  defile  a  man  the,  positive  description  of  what  does.  The 
{things)  coming  out  of  the  hearty  i.  e.  proceeding  from  it  in  a  moral 
sense.  The  double  out  (ck)  prefixed  in  Greek  both  to  verb  and  noun 
adds  strength  to  the  antithesis  or  contrast.  And  they  (eKeiua,  an  em¬ 
phatic  pronoun  meaning  not  what  I  have  just  described)  the  man 

(make  him  common  or  unholy  in  the  proper  sense).  ‘  Food,  when  it 
enters,  enters  not  into  the  soul  but  the  stomach  and  the  bowels ;  but 
there  is  something,  in  another  sense  proceeding  from  man,  which  does 
really  defile  him.’  What  it  is,  he  teaches  in  the  next  verse. 

19.  For  out  of  the  heart  proceed  evil  thoughts,  mur- 


MATTHEW  15,  19.  20.  417 

ders,  adulteries,  fornications^ 'thefts,  false  witness,  blas¬ 
phemies  : 

Out  of  the  heart,  the  soul,  the  seat  both  of  the  intellect  and  the  af¬ 
fections.  Proceed,  come  out  or  forth,  the  same  verb  that  is  used  in  the 
preceding  verse.  Thoughts,  not  mere  ideas  or  incoherent  notions,  but 
reasonings,  calculations,  plans,  or  purposes,  impl3dng  action  both  of 
mind  and  heart  in  the  restricted  sense.  Of  these  he  now  enumerates 
particular  examples,  in  the  plural  number,  either  to  denote  the  multi¬ 
tude  of  sinful  acts  included  under  each  description  or  the  variety  of 
forms  and  circumstances  under  which  each  sin  may  be  committed. 
Murders,  unlawful  and  malicious  homicides.  Adulteries,  violations  of 
the  marriage  vow ;  fornications,  violations  of  chastity  by  unmarried 
persons  ;  both  being  breaches  of  the  seventh  commandment  (Ex.  20, 
14)  as  interpreted  by  Christ  himself  (see  above,  on  5,  28).  These 
crimes,  interpreted  with  proper  latitude,  include  the  worst  offences 
against  human  justice  and  the  order  of  societ}^.  Thefts,  including  all 
surreptitious  violations  of  the  property  of  others,  and  according  to  later 
Greek  usage  even  those  of  a  more  violent  and  open  nature,  highway- 
robbers  being  still  called  Mephts  (essentially  the  same  word  here  em¬ 
ployed)  in  modern  Greece.  The  opposite  change  has  taken  place  in 
English,  thieves  and  rohhers 'hAng  never  now  confounded  as  they  often 
are  in  our  Bible  (see  above,  on  6,  19,  and  compare  Luke  10,  30).  In 
the  place  of  covetousness  (Mark  7,  22)  Matthew  substitutes  false  testi¬ 
monies,  both  (or  their  equivalents  in  Aramaic)  having  probably  been 
uttered  by  our  Saviour,  as  well  as  several  others  here  omitted  but  pre¬ 
served  by  Mark.  Blasphemies,  another  outward  manifestation  used  to 
represent  an  inward  disposition,  namely,  proud  and  spiteful  anger,  that 
which  finds  expression  in  reviling  and  abusive  words  not  only  against 
man  but  God  (see  above,  on  12,  31).  The  allegation  that  Mark  adds  to 
Matthew’s  catalogue  a  number  of  irrelevant  particulars,  is  perfectly 
gratuitous,  as  no  rule  can  be  laid  down  for  determining  how  many 
might  be  given,  and,  our  Saviour  may  have  uttered  a  still  greater  num¬ 
ber,  out  of  which  one  evangelist  selected  more,  the  other  less,  as  best 
adapted  to  his  own  immediate  purpose. 

20.  These  arc  (the  things)  vv^hich  defile  a  man  :  hut 
to  eat  with  unwashen  hands  defileth  not  a  man. 

The  enumeration  of  particulars  is  followed  by  a  summing  up  or  rep¬ 
etition  of  the  general  statement  which  they  were  intended  to  ex¬ 
emplify.  These  are  the  things  (defiling)  the  man  (desecrating,  ren¬ 
dering  unholy),  not  ceremonially,  but  morally.  To  this  is  added,  not 
by  Mark  but  by  Matthew,  a  correlative  negation  as  to  the  effect  of 
ceremonial  washings  or  their  omission,  winding  up  the  whole  discourse 
and  at  the  same  time  bringing  it  back  to  the  point  from  which  it  set 
out  in  the  first  verse.  But  to  eat,  or  the  {act  of)  eating,  with  unleash¬ 
ed  hands,  i.  e.  ceremonially  unwashed,  wuthout  a  previous  ritual  ablu- 


418 


MATTHEW  15,  20.  21.  22. 


tion,  does  not  jprofane  (or  desecrate)  the  man  (who  so  eats),  or  render 
him  unholy  in  the  sight  of  God. 


21.  Then  Jesus  went  thence,  and  departed  into  the 
coasts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon. 

Thence^  i.  from  the  place  where  the  foregoing  words  were  uttered. 
But  where  was  this  ?  The  last  particular  place  mentioned  was  Gen- 
nesaret  (14,  34),  but  Mark  speaks  of  his  visiting  “  that  whole  surround¬ 
ing  country,”  and  entering  into  “  villages,  cities,  and  fields  ”  (Mark  G, 
55.  56).  This  may  seem  to  cut  off  the  connection  and  prevent  our  as¬ 
certaining  the  locality  referred  to  here.  But  as  thence  implies  a  definite 
place  previously  mentioned,  and  as  JMark’s  statement  is  incidentally  and 
parenthetically  introduced,  and  relates  not  so  much  to  what  occurred 
at  any  one  time  as  to  the  general  and  constant  practice,  as  appears  from 
the  use  of  the  imperfect  tense,  it  is  still  most  probable  that  the  refer¬ 
ence  is  here  to  the  land  (or  district)  of  Gennesaret,  or  to  the  neighbour¬ 
ing  city  of  Capernaum  (see  above,  on  4, 13,  and  compare  John  6, 17). 
Departed,  or  more  exactly,  withdrew,  retreated  (see  above,  on  2, 12.  4, 
12. 12, 15. 14, 13),  from  the  malice  of  his  enemies,  as  some  suppose,  or  as 
others,  from  the  crowd  and  bustle  even  of  his  friends  and  followers.  It 
is  probable,  however,  that  a  higher  and  more  important  motive  led  to 
this  retreat,  to  wit,  the  purpose  to  evince  by  one  act  of  his  public  life 
that,  though  his  personal  ministry  was  to  the  Jews  (see  below,  on  v. 
24.  26,  and  compare  Rom.  15,  8),  his  saving  benefits  were  also  for 
the  Gentiles.  It  is  important  to  remember  that  these  movements 
were  not  made  at  random  or  fortuitously  brought  about,  as  infidel  in¬ 
terpreters  delight  to  represent,  and  some  of  their  believing  admirers  do 
not  venture  to  deny,  but  deliberately  ordered  in  accordance  with  a 
definite  design,  the  reality  of  which  is  not  afiected  by  our  being  able 
or  unable  everywhere  to  trace  it  in  the  history.  Into  (not  merely  to  or 
towai'ds,  which  would  be  otherwise  expressed).  The  parts,  i.  e.  border¬ 
ing  or  frontier  parts  (Mark  7,  24).  Tyre  and  Sidon,  the  two  great  sea¬ 
ports  of  Phenicia.  put  for  the  whole  country,  which  apart  from  them 
had  no  importance  (see  above  on  11,  21).  The  whole  phrase  does  not 
mean  the  region  between  Tyre  and  Sidon,  but  the  boundary  or  frontier 
between  Galilee  and  Phenicia. 


22.  And,  behold,  a  woman  of  Canaan  came  out  of  the 
same  coasts,  and  cried  unto  him,  saying,  Have  mercy  on 
me,  0  Lord,  (thou)  Son  of  David  ;  my  daughter  is  griev¬ 
ously  vexed  with  a  devil. 

The  remarkable  circumstance  in  this  case,  which  in  part  accounts 
for  its  insertion  in  the  history,  is  that  the  woman  here  described  was 
a  Gentile,  not  only  by  residence,  but  by  extraction.  A  Canaanitish 


419 


MATTHEW  15,22.23. 

woman^  bo  called  because  Pheuicia  was  peopled  by  the  sons  of  Canaan, 
who  had  not  been  driven  out  as  they  were  from  Palestine.  This  is  per¬ 
fectly  consistent  with  Mark’s  description  of  the  same  woman  as  a 
Syrophenician,  i.  e.  a  native  or  inhabitant  of  that  Phenicia  which  was 
contiguous  to  Syria  and  dependent  on  it  as  a  Roman  province,  and  also 
as  a  GreeTc^  in  the  Hellenistic  sense  of  Gentile,  even  where  the  lan¬ 
guage  was  not  actually  spoken,  as  it  may  have  been  in  this  case. 
Out  of  those  borders^  i.  e.  frontier  regions,  the  parts  mentioned  in  the 
first  verse.  This  phrase  is  not  necessarily  dependent  in  construction 
on  the  verb  which  follows  it  in  Greek  but  comes  before  it  in  English. 
It  may  mean  coming  out  of  those  parts^  but  it  may  also  mean  belong¬ 
ing  to  them  (compare  the  like  use  of  the  preposition  aus  (or  out  of)  in 
German),  or  residing  in  them.  Coming  out  will  then  have  reference  to 
her  house  or  place  of  residence.  ‘  A  woman  from  that  region  going 
forth  (to  meet  him).’  Cried^  clamoured,  made  a  noise.  Son  of  David^ 
a  familiar  name  of  the  Messiah  (see  above,  on  1,  1.  9,  27.  12,  23),  in 
which  character  this  Gentile  woman  recognizes  Jesus.  The  last  six 
words  in  English  correspond  to  two  in  Greek  which  strictly  mean  is 
hadly  demonized^  a  verb  repeatedly  employed  before  by  Matthew. 
(See  above,  on  4,  24.  8,  16.  28.  33.  9,  32.  12,  22.)  Wiclif’s  version  of 
the  phrase  is,  evil  travailed  of  a  fiend. 

23.  But  lie  answered  her  not  a  word.  And  his  dis¬ 
ciples  came  and  besought  him,  saying,  Send  her  away  ; 
for  she  crieth  after  us. 

Another  singularity  of  this  case,  which  suggests  a  further  reason 
for  its  being  so  minutely  stated,  is  our  Lord’s  refusal  to  perform  the 
miracle,  of  which  this  is  the  first  and  only  instance  upon  record.  ^  Even 
here,  however,  it  was  not  an  absolute  and  permanent  refusal,  but  a 
relative  and  temporary  one,  designed  to  answer  an  important  purpose, 
both  in  its  occurrence  and  in  the  historical  account  of  it.  Matthew  here 
records  a  circumstance  not  found  in  Mark,  to  wit,  that  her  request  was 
at  first  received  in  silence.  He  did  not  answer  her  a  word.^  i.  e.  a  single 
word  or  one  word.  The  same  expression  occurs  again  in  22, 46  below, 
and  the  converse  of  it  in  8,  8.  16  above.  It  here  means  simply  that 
he  did  not  answer  her  at  all,  in  consequence  of  which  she  followed 
him  continuing  her  outcries.  This  is  not  inconsistent  with  Mark’s 
statement  (7,  24)  that  he  went  into  a  house,  which  relates  only  to  his 
first  arrival  in  those  parts,  and  cannot  mean  that  he  continued  there  in¬ 
definitely.  His  disciples,  probably  the  twelve,  who  were  again  in  at¬ 
tendance  on  him  after  their  return  from  their  temporary  mission.  (See 
above,  on  14,  13,  and  compare  Mark  6,  30.)  Coming  up,  or  coming 
to  (him),  i.  e.  nearer  to  him  (as  in  v.  12).  Besought  him,  literally, 
asked  him,  i.  e.  asked  him  whether  he  would  not  dismiss  her,  an  ab¬ 
solute  use  of  the  verb  to  ash  very  common  in  Hebrew  and  the  Greek 
of  the  New  Testament.  Send  away,  discharge,  dismiss,  a  verb  applied 
above  (14,  15.  22.  23)  to  the  dissolving  of  a  large  assembly,  but  else- 


420 


MATTHEW  15,23.24.25. 


where  (1,  19.  5,  31.  32)  to  a  single  person.  In  itself  it  might  here 
mean  dismiss  her  without  granting  her  petition  ;  but  our  Lord’s  an¬ 
swer  in  the  next  verse  presupposes  that  they  asked  him  to  get  rid  of  her 
by  granting  it.  She  crieth  after  us  is  not,  as  it  is  sometimes  represent¬ 
ed,  an  expression  of  mere  selfish  regard  to  their  own  ease,  as  it  may 
also  indicate  a  care  for  the  honour  and  the  comfort  of  their  master. 
Indeed  there  is  no  necessary  reference  whatever  to  the  mere  incon¬ 
venience  of  her  crying  after  them.  These  words  may  be  intended 
simply  to  describe  her  importunity  and  grief  as  a  reason  for  granting 
her  request.  Thus  explained  they  are  equivalent  to  saying,  ‘  Give  her 
what  she  asks  so  earnestly,  and  with  such  evidence  of  sufi'ering  as  well 
as  of  believing  expectation.’ 

24.  But  lie  answered  and  said,  I  am  not  sent  but 
unto  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel. 

This  is  another  interesting  circumstance  which  Mark  omits.  Our  Lord 
before  answering  the  woman  answers  the  disciples  by  reminding  them 
that  what  they  asked  was  not  a  thing  of  course  or  of  usual  occurrence, 
being  not  like  his  other  miracles  of  healing  and  of  dispossession  a  part 
of  his  ordinary  work  and  mission,  which  was  intended  for  the  Jews 
and  not  the  Gentiles.  Sent^  commissioned  by  my  Father,  in  my 
Messianic  character  and  office.  The  same  application  of  the  verb  oc¬ 
curs  above  in  10,  40,  while  in  vs.  5.  16  of  the  same  chapter,  it  is  ap¬ 
plied  to  the  apostles,  whose  official  title  is  derived  from  it.*  There 
seems  to  be  an  obvious  allusion  to  their  own  commission  as  recorded 
in  10,  5.  6,  as  well  as  to  the  description  in  9,  36.  As  explained  by 
these  analogies,  the  words  may  thus  be  paraphrased.  ‘  How  can  you 
expect  me  to  turn  from  the  sufferers  of  my  own  race  to  strangers,  when 
I  forbade  you  to  go  to  the  Samaritans  or  Gentiles  ?  ’  This  is  not  a 
reason  for  refusing  their  request,  but  an  intimation  that  in  granting  it 
he  would  be  transcending  the  formal  bounds  of  their  commission  and 
his  own. 

25.  Then  came  she  and  worshipped  him,  saying,  Lord, 
help  me. 

Not  content  with  crying  after  him  or  to  him  from  a  distance,  she 
drew  near  to  him  and  worshipped  him  or  did  him  homage  (see  above,  on 
2,  2.  4,  9.  8,  2.  9,  18.  14,  33).  This  may  imply  that  he  had  stopped 
or  stood  still  to  receive  her  prayer.  Lord  is  here  a  title  of  the  most 
profound  respect,  if  not  a  recognition  of  his  deity.  Help,  rescue,  a 
Greek  word  suggestive  of  extreme  distress  or  danger,  originally  mean¬ 
ing  to  run  in  answer  to  a  cry  for  succor. 


*  See  also  18,41.  20,2.  21,84.  22,3.  23,34.  23,37.  24,31,  and  compare  John 
1,6.  3,  17.28.34.  6,36.  6,20.57.  8,42.  10,36.  11,42.  17,3.8.18.21.23.25.  20,21. 


MATTHEW  15,26.27. 


421 


26.  But  he  answered  and  said,  It  is  not  meet  to  take 
the  children’s  bread,  and  cast  (it)  to  dogs. 

Mee%  i.  e.  suitable,  becoming,  handsome,  which  approaches  nearest 
to  the  strict  sense  of  the  Greek  word,  namely,  or  heautifal^  though 
commonly  applied  in  Scripture  to  excellence  or  beauty  of  a  moral  kind. 
To  tahe,  not  pleonastic,  as  it  often  is  in  English,  but  to  take  away  from 
them  and  bestow  it  upon  others.  The  children^  breads  the  bread  in¬ 
tended  and  provided  for  them,  and  when  actually  given  belonging  to 
them.  Bogs^  a  diminutive  supposed  by  some  to  be  contemptuous, 
like  whelps  or  piLpgnes^  but  by  others  an  expression  of  affectionate 
familiarity,  like  little  daughter  (a  Greek  word  of  the  same  form)  in 
Mark  7,  25.  This  question  is  connected  with  another,  as  to  the  sense 
in  which  dogs  are  mentioned  here  at  all,  Avhether  simply  in  allusion  to 
the  wild  gregarious  oriental  dog,  regarded  as  an  impure  and  ferocious 
beast,  or  to  the  classical  and  modern  European  notion  of  the  dog  as  a 
domesticated  animal,  the  humble  companion  and  faithful  friend  of  man. 
The  objection  to  the  former  explanation  is  not  only  its  revolting  harsh¬ 
ness,  and  the  ease  with  which  the  same  idea  might  have  been  express¬ 
ed  in  a  less  unusual  manner,  but  the  obvious  relation  here  supposed 
between  the  children  and  the  dogs,  as  at  and  under  the  same  table,  and 
belonging  as  it  were  to  the  same  household.  John,  it  is  true,  uses  dogs 
in  the  offensive  sense  first  mentioned  ;  but  his  language  is  “  without  are 
dogs  ”  (Rev.  22, 15),  apparently  referring  to  the  homeless  dogs  which 
prowl  through  the  streets  of  eastern  cities  (and  compare  Ps.  22,  20. 
59,  6.  See  above,  on  7,  6.  Phil.  3,  2) ;  but  here  the  dogs  are  repre¬ 
sented  as  within,  and  fed  beneath  their  masters  table.  The  beautj^  of 
our  Saviour’s  figure  would  be  therefore  marred  by  understanding  what 
he  says  of  savage  animals,  without  relation  or  attachment  to  mankind. 
Cast,  throw  away,  a  term  implying  waste  of  the  material  as  well  as 
some  contempt  of  the  recipient.  Like  most  of  our  Lord’s  parables  or 
illustrations  from  analogy,  this  exquisite  similitude  is  drawn  from  the 
most  familiar  habits  of  domestic  life,  and  still  comes  home  to  the  expe¬ 
rience  of  thousands. 

27.  And  she  said,  Truth,  Lord  :  yet  the  dogs  eat  of 
the  crumbs  which  fall  from  their  master’s  table. 

There  is  no  dispute  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  admirable  answer, 
which  might  almost  be  applauded  for  its  wit,  if  Christ  himself  had  not 
ascribed  to  it  a  higher  merit,  as  an  evidence  of  signal  faith,  combined 
with  a  humility  no  less  remarkable.  There  is,  however,  some  dispute 
as  to  its  form,  particularly  that  of  the  first  clause,  which  some  explain 
as  a  denial  of  what  he  had  said,  and  others  more  correctly  as  a  partial 
affirmation  or  assent,  but  followed  by  a  partial  contradiction,  as  in  our 
translation.  The  best  philological  interpreters  are  now  agreed  that  yet 
is  not  a  correct  version  of  the  Greek  phrase  (/cal  ya'p),  which  can  only 
mean  agreeably  to  usage,  yhr  or  for  eren.  The  meaning  of  the  answer 
then  will  be,  ‘  Yes,  Lord  (or  Sir),  it  is  true  that  it  would  not  be  be- 


422 


MATTHEW  15,  27.  28.  29. 


coming  to  deprive  the  children  of  their  food,  in  order  to  supply  the 
dogs ;  for  these  are  not  to  eat  the  children’s  bread,  but  the  crumbs  (or 
fragments)  falling  from  the  table.’  The  whole  is  therefore  an  assent  to 
what  our  Lord  had  said,  including  his  description  of  the  Gentiles 
as  the  dogs  beneath  the  table,  and  a  thankful  consent  to  occupy  that 
place  and  to  partake  of  that  inferior  provision.  (literally  from) 
the  cruml)s  is  not  here  a  partitive  expression,  as  it  sometimes  is,  but 
simply  indicates  the  source  from  which  the  nourishment  is  drawn.  The 
idea  suggested  by  an  ancient  and  adopted  by  a  modern  writer,  that  the 
word  translated  crumbs  here  means  the  pieces  of  bread  which  the  an¬ 
cients  used  as  napkins,  is  not  only  a  gratuitous  refinement,  but  a  need¬ 
less  variation  from  the  usage  of  the  word,  which  is  a  regular  diminu¬ 
tive  of  one  itself  denoting  a  crumb,  bit,  or  morsel,  especially  of  bread. 
Their  masters,  owners,  or  proprietors,  either  the  children  mentioned  in 
V.  26,  or  the  parents  of  those  children  (compare  Mark  7,  28). 

28.  Then  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  her^  0  woman, 
great  (is)  thy  faith  :  he  it  unto  thee  even  as  thou  wilt. 
And  her  daughter  was  made  whole  from  that  very  hour. 

Here  again,  as  in  the  case  of  the  centurion  (see  above,  on  8,  10), 
our  Lord  commends  the  faith,  not  of  the  sufferer  but  of  her  repre¬ 
sentative  and  intercessor.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  both  the  per¬ 
sons  thus  distinguished  by  the  Saviour’s  praise  were  Gentiles.  It 
was  not  however  merely  as  such,  or  for  Gentiles,  that  their  faith  was 
great,  but  even  in  comparison  with  the  more  highly  favoured  Jews. 
Be  it  (let  it  come  to  pass  or  happen)  to  thee  as  thou  wilt,  as  thou  de- 
sirest  (Tyndale).  Healed,  i.  e.  delivered  from  the  morbid  state  arising 
from  the  presence  of  the  demon.  (See  above,  on  4, 24.)  From  that  hour, 
in  the  vaguer  sense  of  time  or  the  more  specific  one  of  moment.  (See 
above,  on  8,  13.  9,  22.  10,  19.  14,  15.)  Tyndale’s  version  of  the  prep¬ 
osition  {at)  is  not  only  inexact,  but  fads  to  convey  the  idea  of  con¬ 
tinuous  or  permanent  recovery  suggested  by  the  strict  translation 
{from).  Very  (Tyndale,  the  same)  is  an  admissible  but  needless 
addition. 

29.  And  Jesus  departed  from  thence,  and  came  nigh 
unto  the  sea  of  Galilee  ;  and  went  up  into  a  mountain, 
and  sat  down  there. 

Passing  (or  remoring)  thence,  from  that  place,  i.  e.  from  the  region 
of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  where  the  preceding  miracle  was  wrought.  The 
point  of  departure  and  the  route  are  more  particularly  specified  by 
Mark  (7,  31).  Along  (Wiclif,  beside)  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  otherwise 
called  the  lake  of  Tiberias  or  Genessaret.  (See  above,  on'  4,  15.  18. 
14,  34,  and  compare  Luke  5,  1.  John  6,  1.  21,  1.)  A  circumstance 
which  Mark  omits  is  here  recorded,  namely,  that  on  coming  into  these 
parts,  he  went  up  into  the  mountain  (or  the  high  lands)  not  a  moun- 


MATTHEW  15,29.30.31. 


423 


tain  (see  above,  on  5, 1.  8,  1.  14,  23),  and  sat  tliere^  which  would  seem 
from  the  ensuing  context,  to  denote,  not  the  momentary  act  of  sit¬ 
ting  down  on  one  occasion,  but  a  more  protracted  period  of  residence 
or  rest,  an  idea  readily  suggested  by  the  verb  to  sit  in  Greek  and 
Hebrew.  (See  above,  on  4,  16.  11,  16.)  As  usual,  however,  this  re¬ 
tirement  and  repose  was  soon  interrupted  by  the  never  distant  multi¬ 
tude,  and  by  a  great  variety  of  cases  for  the  exercise  of  healing  power, 
one  of  which  is  singled  out  and  related  in  detail  by  Mark  alone 
(7,  32-37),  while  Matthew  gives  a  general  account  of  all  the  miracles 
performed  at  this  time  in  the  mountains  of  Decapolis. 

30.  And  great  multitudes  came  unto  him,  having  with 
them  (those  that  were)  lame,  blind,  dumb,  maimed,  and 
many  others,  and  cast  them  down  at  Jesus'  feet  ;  and 
he  healed  them  : 

As  in  other  cases,  where  he  wishes  to  describe  the  variety  and 
number  of  our  Saviour’s  miracles  of  healing,  Matthew  here  names  cer¬ 
tain  classes  of  disease  or  suffering  and  adds  a  general  expression.  Thus 
in  4,  24,  he  specifies  the  palsy,  lunacy,  and  demoniacal  possession,  in 
connection  with  “  divers  diseases  and  torments,”  and  the  still  more 
general  terms,  “  every  disease  and  every  infirmity.  In  8,  16,  he  adds 
to  a  particular  case  of  fever  the  two  great  classes  of  demoniacs  and 
sick.  In  11,  5,  he  introduces  Christ  himself  as  enumerating  to  the 
messengers  of  John  the  Baptist,  the  blind,  lepers,  deaf,  and  dead,  as 
the  subjects  of  his  healing  and  resuscitating  power.  So  here  the  evan¬ 
gelist  distinctly  mentions,  as  the  subjects  of  miraculous  healing,  the 
lame,  Mind,  deaf,  and  maimed,  a  Greek  word  strictly  meaning  croolced, 
then  more  generally  crippled  by  disease,  in  which  sense  it  is  joined 
with  ycoXdff  by  Hippocrates.  That  these  are  only  specimens  or  samples, 
may  be  seen  not  only  from  the  other  cases  just  referred  to,  but  from 
the  express  addition  of  the  vague  but  comprehensive  phrase,  and 
many  others.  The  vast  number  of  the  cases  may  be  gathered  from  the 
mention  of  those  bringing  them  as  great  multitudes  (or  many  crowds), 
the  same  expression  as  in  4,  25.  8,  1.  18.  12,  15.  13,  2,  and  the  plural 
form  of  that  in  14,  14.  Earing  with  them,  i.  e.  bringing  from  their 
homes  in  the  surrounding  country,  which  would  seem  from  this  de¬ 
scription  to  be  one  not  previously  visited.  Some  infer  that  they 
were  rude  mountaineers  from  the  statement  that  they  cast  (or  threio) 
them  down  at  Jesus'^  feet.  Others,  however,  understand  this  mereb'-^  as 
a  sign  of  haste  and  eagerness  to  bring  as  many  as  they  could  with¬ 
in  the  reach  of  our  Lord’s  healing  power.  That  this  power  was  ex¬ 
ercised  in  every  case  presented,  may  be  safely  gathered  from  the  last 
clause,  and  he  healed  them.  The  miracle  recorded  here^  by  Mark  is 
taken  from  the  third  class  specified  by  Matthew,  and  is  one  of  the 
very  few  peculiar  to  Mark’s  Gospel. 


31.  Insomuch  that  the  multitude  wondered,  when 


424 


MATTHEW  15,31.32. 


they  saw  the  dumb  to  speak,  the  maimed  to  be  whole,  the 
lame  to  walk,  and  the  blind  to  see  :  and  they  glorified 
the  God  of  Israel. 

This  verse  describes  the  effect  of  the  miracles  on  the  multitudes^ 
by  whom  the  cases  were  presefited.  It  would  scarcely  have  been 
mentioned  so  particularly  if  the  field  were  not  a  new  one.  The  four 
classes  mentioned  in  v.  30  are  repeated  in  a  different  order,  with 
the  change  wrought  on  each  by  the  miracle  of  healing.  A  descrip¬ 
tion  similar  in  form  but  differing  in  details  is  given  by  our  Lord 
himself  in  11,  3  above.  The  effect  itself  was  wonder,  leading  them 
to  glorify  or  praise  the  God  of  Israel^  a  remarkable  expression  as 
applied  to  Jews,  and  almost  justifying  the  conclusion,  that  these 
mountaineers  were  Gentiles,  perhaps  inhabiting  the  same  tract  where 
the  demons  took  possession  of  the  swine,  and  where  our  Saviour 
was  desired  by  the  people  to  depart  on  that  occasion.  (See  above,  on 
8,  34.)  If  so,  the  passage  has  peculiar  interest,  as  recording  his  re¬ 
turn  to  the  same  region,  and  his  joyful  recognition  by  the  people,  not 
as  a  destroyer  but  a  healer,  which  may  possibly  have  ended  in  their 
general  conversion  to  the  true  religion. 

32.  Then  Jesus  called  bis  disciples  (unto  him),  and 
said,  I  have  compassion  on  the  multitude,  because  they 
continue  with  me  now  three  days,  and  have  nothing  to 
eat  :  and  I  will  not  send  them  away  fasting,  lest  they 
faint  in  the  way. 

1  have  compassion^  I  am  moved  (or  yearn)  wnth  pity,  the  peculiar 
idiom  explained  above  (on  9,  36, 14, 14).  The  proposition  is  here  made 
by  Christ  himself,  as  in  John’s  account  of  the  former  miracle  (John  6, 
5),  with  which  that  of  Matthew  (14, 15)  is  perfectlj^  consistent.  Be¬ 
cause  already  three  days  they  continue  with  me,  or  according  to  the 
latest  critics,  three  days  now  continue,  i.  e.  the  third  day  is  passing. 
The  three  days  are  probably  to  be  computed  in  the  Jewish  man¬ 
ner,  i.  e.  reckoning  each  portion  as  a  whole  day,  so  that  three  days 
do  not  necessarily  include  more  than  one  w'hole  day  and  portions  of 
two  others.  To  send  them  aicay,  dismiss,  dissolve  them  (see  above,  on 
14,  15.  22.  23),  not  as  individuals  merely,  but  as  an  assembly  or  a  con¬ 
gregation,  which  implies  that  according  to  his  custom  he  had  taught  as 
well  as  healed  on  this  occasion.  Fasting,  hungry,  without  eating, 
without  having  eaten,  a  word  found  only  in  this  passage  and  the  paral¬ 
lel  (Mark  8,  3).  I  will  not,  i.  e.  am  not  willing,  do  not  choose  to  do 
so.  Lest  they  faint,  or  be  relaxed,  debilitated,  literally  loosened  out,  a 
kindred  verb  to  that  translated  send  away,  but  strictly  meaning  to  dis¬ 
solve.  The  reference  is,  therefore,  not  to  fainting  in  the  modern  sense 
of  swooning,  but  to  weakness  occasioned  by  the  want  of  food.  In  the 
way,  in  (or  on)  the  way  home. 


425 


MATTHEW  15,33-36. 

33.  And  his  disciples  say  unto  him,  ¥/hence  should 
we  have  so  much  bread  in  the  wilderness,  as  to  till  so  great 
a  multitude  ? 

34.  And  Jesus  saitli  unto  them.  How  many  loaves 
have  ye  ?  And  they  said,  Seven,  and  a  few  little  fishes. 

U7ie7ice,  not  merely  /wtc,  but  more  specifically,  from  what  source 
or  quarter  ?  (Are  there^  or  can  there  he)  to  i.  e.  how  should  we 
have  so  much  bread  (so  many  loares).  Fill^  i.  e.  in  the  physical  corporeal 
sense  of  satiating,  filling  the  stomach,  appeasing  the  desire  for  food. 
(For  the  primary  and  secondary  usage  of  the  Greek  verb,  see  above, 
on  5,  6.  14, 20.)  In  a  (not  the)  desert^  which  would  therefore  seem  to 
mean  a  barren  waste,  and  not  a  mere  uncultivated  solitude  (see  above, 
on  3,  1.  4,  1.  11,  7).  The  strangeness  of  the  fact,  that  the  disciples 
should  have  spoken  thus  after  the  first  feeding  of  the  multitude,  though 
not  to  be  denied,  is  not  to  be  exaggerated.  It  is  not  said  that  they  for¬ 
got  the  other  miracle ;  but  what  right  had  they  to  expect  its  repeti¬ 
tion,  or  what  reason  to  believe  that  he  would  choose  what  was  in  some 
respects  his  most  stupendous  miracle  to  be  repeated  ?  Besides,  the  in¬ 
consideration  of  Christ’s  followers  is  always  represented  as  extraordi¬ 
nary,  almost  preternatural,  until  they  had  received  the  Holy  Spirit, 
And  yet  Moses  represents  himself  as  guilty  of  the  same  oblivion  or  un¬ 
belief  (see  Num.  11,21,  22,  and  compare  Ps.  78,19.  20);  and  Israel 
displayed  it  upon  all  occasions  from  the  departure  out  of  Egypt  till  the 
entrance  into  Canaan.  Even  those  who  now  reject  the  statement  as  in¬ 
credible  would  probably  have  done  the  same  if  similarly  situated. 
How  that  we  know  Christ’s  purpose  to  renew  the  miraculous  provision, 
it  is  easy  to  exclaim  at  those  who  did  not  know  it  and  had  really  no 
reason  to  expect  it.  The  number  of  loaves  is  here  greater  than  before 
(14, 17),  and  the  fishes  are  mentioned  as  few  and  small.  These  varia¬ 
tions  are  exceedingly  adverse  to  the  hypothesis  of  one  occurrence  di¬ 
vided  by  tradition  into  two. 

35.  And  he  commanded  the  multitude  to  sit  down  on 
the  ground. 

36.  And  he  took  the  seven  loaves  and  the  fishes,  and 
gave  thanks,  and  brake  (them),  and  gave  to  his  disciples, 
and  the  disciples  to  the  multitude. 

On  the  earth  is  substituted  here  for  on  the  grass  (14, 19),  which 
might  be  regarded  as  substantially  synonymous  but  for  the  expressions 
in  V.  34  implying  that  this  was  a  desert  in  the  strict  sense,  i.  e.  wholly 
destitute  of  vegetation.  Another  circumstance  omitted  hero  in  both 
accounts  is  the  symmetrical  arrangement  of  the  multitude  in  companies 
or  messes,  which  may  either  have  been  really  dispensed  with  on  this 


426 


MATTHEW  15,36.37.38. 

occasion,  or  left  to  be  supplied  from  Mark  (6,  39.  40).  Another  is  the 
act  of  looking  up  to  heaven  (14, 19),  while  for  that  of  blessing  is  here 
substituted  that  of  giving  thanks,  unless  both  be  considered  as  describ¬ 
ing  the  same  service,  like  the  corresponding  English  phrase,  to  say 
grace.  The  usual  and  simple  verb  to  Vreak  here  takes  the  place  of  the 
emphatic  compound  used  before. 


37.  And  they  did  all  eafc,  and  were  filled  :  and  they 
took  lip  of  the  broken  (meat)  that  was  left  seven  baskets 
full. 

Instead  of  twelve  lyasTcets  full  of  fragments,  we  have  here  the  rem¬ 
nant  (excess,  superfluity)  <f  fragments,  seven  loasTcets.  Besides  the 
difference  of  construction  and  of  number,  the  word  for  iaslceis  is  entirely 
different  in  both  evangelists  from  that  before  used  (11,  20) ;  and  this 
distinction  is  observed  in  our  Saviour’s  subsequent  allusions  to  these 
two  great  miracles  (see  below,  on  16, 10).  The  notion  of  some  modern 
sceptics,  that  this  difference  betrays  a  difference  of  source  or  traditional 
authorit3q  proceeds  upon  the  monstrous  supposition,  that  a  writer  ca¬ 
pable  of  framing  such  a  history  as  we  have  found  this  to  be,  could  either 
ignorantly  or  deliberately  introduce  into  his  narrative,  without  the 
slightest  intimation  to  the  reader,  two  discordant  statements  of  the 
same  occurrence,  wnth  their  variations  both  of  form  and  substance,  in 
a  perfectly  crude  and  unadjusted  state.  Such  a  postulate  would  not 
have  been  so  long  endured  by  Christian  readers  but  for  the  unfortunate 
impression  even  among  them,  that  the  gospels  are  mere  bundles  of  ma¬ 
terials,  out  of  which  we  are  to  frame  a  history,  instead  of  being  well- 
digested  histories  themselves.  The  consistent  and  uniform  distinction 
made  between  the  baskets  makes  it  highly  probable  that  different  kinds 
were  used  upon  the  two  occasions,  though  the  difference  itself  may  now 
be  lost,  as  it  certainly  is  wholly  unimportant.  Chrysostom  suggests, 
however,  that  the  baskets  in  the  second  case  were  probably  larger, 
which  makes  the  disproportion  less,  and  seems  to  be  confirmed  by  Acts 
9,  25. 

38.  And  tkey  that  did  eat  were  four  thousand  men, 
beside  women  and  children. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  this  second  narrative,  so  far  from  be¬ 
ing  an  exaggeration  or  embellishment  of  the  first,  not  only  makes  the 
numbers  fed  absolutely  smaller,  but  the  ratio  or  proportion  to  the  food 
provided,  thus  diminishing  the  miracle  so  far  as  mere  quantity  is  con¬ 
cerned.  On  what  supposition  can  this  strange  fact  be  accounted  for, 
except  the  supposition  of  historic  reality,  the  simple  supposition  that 
the  two  events  occurred  precisely  as  Matthew  here  relates  them  ?  Had 
the  two  miracles  been  given  each  by  one  evangelist,  there  might  have 
been  some  colour  for  the  charge  of  two  irreconcilable  traditions ;  but 
as  if  to  sweep  away  the  very  ground  of  such  an  allegation,  both  are  re- 


MATTHEW  15,38.39. 


V 


427 


corded  both  by  Mark  and  Matthew,  so  that  the  points  of  difference,  instead 
of  serving  to  discredit  either,  only  prove  that  the  events  themselves 
were  altogether  different.  The  points  are  indeed  as  many  and  as 
marked  as  they  could  well  have  been,  supposing  that  the  same  essential 
miracle  was  twice  performed.  The  time,  place,  numbers,  and  propor¬ 
tions  are  all  different ;  and  it  is  surely  not  to  be  regarded  as  surprising 
that  the  people  in  both  instances  were  hungry,  that  the  food  provided 
was  their  ordinary  diet,  that  they  leaned  or  lay  upon  the  ground,  that 
Christ  pronounced  or  asked  a  blessing  on  the  food,  and  employed  the 
twelve  disciples  in  its  distribution.  For  how  could  any  of  these  cir¬ 
cumstances  vary  if  he  did  repeat  the  miracle  ?  His  reasons  for  repeat¬ 
ing  it  are  not  revealed,  and  need  not  be  conjectured ;  but  among  them 
may  have  been  the  very  feeling  which  now  prompts  the  question.  We 
have  seen  it  already  to  be  not  improbable,  that  some  of  the  accompany¬ 
ing  acts  in  other  miracles  were  varied  for  the  purpose  of  evincing  his 
own  libert}^  and  absolute  discretion,  as  distinguished  from  the  uniform 
routine  to  which  men  would  have  tied  him.  May  he  not,  for  the  same 
reason,  have  repeated  in  a  less  imposing  form,  what  they  would  rather 
have  expected  to  see  standing  by  itself  in  its  unique  sublimity,  as  some¬ 
thing  that  could  happen  only  once,  and  was  wholly  sui  generis  ?  But 
this  may  be  undue  refinement,  and  it  may  be  better  simply  to  regard 
it  as  an  instance  of  authoritative  action,  independent  of  our  finite  views 
of  what  is  right  or  needful.  That  both  these  miracles  have  been  re¬ 
corded  notwithstanding  their  resemblance,  is  explained  by  that  which 
seems  to  call  for  explanation.  It  is  no  doubt  the  practice  of  the  sacred 
writers  to  avoid  the  repetition  of  identical  or  nearly  similar  events ; 
but  in  a  case  of  such  surprising  repetition  of  the  acts  themselves,  the 
very  sameness  was  a  reason  for  recording  both. 

39.  And  he  sent  away  the  multitude,  and  took  ship, 
and  came  into  the  coasts  of  Magdala. 

Entered  (embarked,  went  on  board)  not  a  ship  but  the  ship  (or  the 
boat)^  i.  e.  the  one  before  mentioned  as  attending  him  (see  above,  on  8, 
23.  24.  9, 1.  13,  2.  14, 13.  22),  in  which  he  made  his  voyages  from  one 
point  to  another,  and  from  which  he  sometimes  taught  the  people.  The 
coasts  (borders,  neighbourhood)  Magdala,  the  site  of  which  has  been 
determined  on  the  west  shore  of  the  lake,  a  few  miles  north  of  Tiberias. 
The  Codex  Vaticanus  and  the  Vulgate  have  Magadan. 

- - 


CHAPTEK  XYI. 

Resuming  his  account  of  the  concerted  opposition  to  our  Lord,  Matthew 
now  represents  the  two  great  rival  sects  or  parties  as  uniting  in  a  fresh 
demand  for  a  certain  kind  of  miracle,  which  they  chose  to  make  the 


428 


M  A  T  T  H  E  W  16, 1.  2. 

test  of  his  Messiahship,  but  which  he  again  refused  to  furnish  (1-4). 
A  remarkable  mistake  of  the  disciples  serves  to  show  their  backward¬ 
ness  in  learning  under  such  a  teacher,  and  affords  an  oppoilunit}^  of 
further  admonition  and  instruction  (5-12).  During  a  circuit  in  the 
northern  portion  of  Perea,  he  inquires  into  the  opinions  of  his  followers  re¬ 
specting  him,  and  draws  forth  from  the  twelve  a  formal  acknowledgment 
of  his  Messiahship  (13-20).  He  then  imparts  to  them,  more  clearly 
than  before,  the  painful  doctrine  of  his  passion,  and  rebukes  Peter  for 
resisting  it  (21-23).  This  gives  occasion  to  a  public  statement  of  the 
duty  and  necessity  of  self-denial,  and  the  danger  of  denying  Christ 
(24—27),  winding  up  with  a  solemn  and  mysterious  intimation  of  his 
coming  in  his  kingdom  as  at  hand  (28).  All  these  topics  are  connect¬ 
ed  by  the  twofold  tie  of  chronological  succession  and  of  a  natural  asso¬ 
ciation,  proving  anew  the  methodical  coherence  and  organic  oneness  of 
the  composition.  There  is  a  parallel  in  Mark  to  this  whole  chapter,  and 
in  Luke  also  to  the  latter  part,  though  Matthew  has  in  several  places 
words  and  incidents  not  found  in  either  of  the  others.  The  order  of 
the  topics  is  the  same  in  all  the  Gospels. 

1.  The  Pharisees  also  with  the  Sadducees  came,  and 
tempting,  desired  him  that  he  would  show  them  a  sign 
from  heaven. 

The  Pharisees,  his  prominent  opponents,  as  the  zealous  adherents 
of  the  oral  law  or  traditional  theology,  now  combine  with  their  own 
enemies  and  rivals,  the  sceptical  and  scofiung  Sadducees  (see  above,  on 
3,  7,  and  below,  on  22, 15.  23),  in  renewing  a  demand  which  had  been 
made  already  by  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes  on  a  previous  occasion  (see 
above,  on  12,  38).  Tempting,  not  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  urging  or 
enticing  him  to  sin,  but  in  the  primary  and  wide  sense  of  trying,  put¬ 
ting  to  the  proof,  a  process  necessarily  implying  either  doubt  or  unbe¬ 
lief  of  his  pretensions.  In  this  sense  man  is  said  to  tempt  God,  who  is 
incapable  of  tempting  or  being  tempted  in  the  other  (James  1, 13). 
Desired  him,  literally,  ashed  or  questioned,  as  in  12, 10.  A  sign  from 
(literally,  out  of)  hearen,  as  distinguished  from  a  sign  on  earth,  such  as 
his  miracles  of  healing  were,  or  a  sign  from  hell,  as  they  declared  his 
dispossessions  of  the  demons  to  be  (see  above,  on  12,  24).  To  shoio 
them,  i.  e.  to  exhibit  it  for  their  satisfaction  or  conviction.  This  de¬ 
mand  may  have  been  prompted  by  a  real  belief  that  the  Messiah’s  ad¬ 
vent  was  to  be  announced  by  strange  celestial  phenomena ;  or  it  may 
have  been  a  mere  subterfuge,  a  cavilling  demand  for  more  proof  when 
they  had  enough  already,  an  attempt  to  escape  from  the  convincing 
power  of  his  miracles  on  earth  by  demanding  one  from  heaven. 

2.  He  answered  and  said  unto  tliem^  When  it  is  even¬ 
ing,  ye  say,  (It  will  he)  fair  weather  :  for  the  sky  is  red. 

Before  repeating  his  refusal  uttered  on  the  previous  occasion 
(12,  39),  and  here  subjoined  immediately  by  Mark  (8,  12),  our  Lord 


429 


MATTHEW  16,2.3.4. 

rebukes  their  inconsistency  or  disproportionate  regard  to  lower  inter¬ 
ests,  by  pointedly  contrasting  their  facility  and  skill  in  judging  of  the 
weather,  with  their  real  or  pretended  want  of  evidence  in  his  case. 

have  here  another  striking  instance  of  his  condescending  vv^'isdoni 
in  enforcing  moral  truth  b}^  illustrations  drawn  from  the  eveiy-day  ex¬ 
perience  of  common  life.  Evening  lyemg  come^  or  at  the  close  of  dav^ 
in  reference  no  doubt  to  the  later  evening  of  the  Jews  (see  above,  on 
8,  16.  14,  15.  23),  or  the  interval  from  sunset  until  dark.  Ye  say,  i.  e. 
often  or  habitually  say,  are  wont  to  say.  The  v/ords  thus  put  into 
their  mouths  were  no  doubt  often  heard  in  conversation,  as  the  weather 
has  in  every  age,  despite  the  ridicule  of  mock-philosophers,  afibrded 
one  of  the  most  interesting  subjects  of  colloquial  discourse.  What  ail 
men  everywhere  and  always  talk  about,  cannot  be  wholly  unimportant 
or  unworthy  of  attention.  Fair  loeatlier  a  single  word  in  Greek,  and 
a  sort  of  exclamation,  just  as  we  say  “a  fine  day!”  without  a  verb 
expressed  or  understood.  Here,  however,  there  is  more  ground  for  as¬ 
suming  an  ellipsis,  as  the  reference  is  not  to  the  present  but  the  future. 
Is  red^  a  Hellenistic  verb  {nyppa^eC)  derived  from  a  classical  Greek 
adjective  (nvppos)  which  properly  means  Jiery  in  colour,  and  is  pecul¬ 
iarly  appropriate  to  the  bright  or  flaming  red  with  which  the  sky  is 
often  coloured  at  or  after  sunset. 

3.  And  in  the  morning,  (It  will  he)  foul  weather  to¬ 
day  :  for  the  sky  is  red  and  lowering.  0  (ye)  hypocrites, 
ye  can  discern  the  face  of  the  sky  ;  hut  can  ye  not  (dis¬ 
cern)  the  signs  of  the  times  ? 

4.  A  wicked  and  adulterous  generation  seeketh  after 
a  sign  ;  and  there  shall  no  sign  he  given  unto  it,  hut  the 
sign  of  the  prophet  Jonas.  And  he  left  them,  and  de¬ 
parted. 

In  the  morning^  one  Greek  word  (npco'i),  corresponding  to  the  Latin 
mane  and  the  English  early ^  but  more  specific  than  the  latter,  which 
may  be  relatively  used  in  reference  to  any  portion  of  the  day  or  night, 
whereas  the  Greek  and  Latin  terms  are  restricted  to  the  morning. 
The  same  description  is  repeated,  but  with  an  additional  expression, 
lowering  or  frowning^  which  retains  the  participial  form  of  the  original, 
but  may  be  rendered  adjectively,  sullen^  angry.  The  original  construc¬ 
tion  is,  reddens  frowning^  without  the  and  supplied  in  English,  which 
conveys  the  true  sense  but  enfeebles  the  expression.*  We  may  either 
understand  our  Lord  as  meaning  that  these  two  appearances  were 
usual  at  these  two  times  of  day  respectively,  or  simply  that  they  both 

The  older  versions  have  a  rich  variety  of  English  phrases  to  express  this 
appearance  of  the  heavens.  heaven  shineih  heavily;  Tynclale, //te 

is  cloudy  and  red  •  Geneva,  red  and  cloudy  ;  Cramner,  glowing  red  ;  Rheims, 
the  dement  doth  glow  and  lower. 


430 


MATTHEW  16,4.5.6. 


occurred  at  both,  and  are  only  distinguished  for  the  sake  of  the  emphat¬ 
ic  repetition.  There  is  nothing  answering  in  Greek  to  0  ye^  which  is 
no  more  necessary  here  than  in  ch.  xxiii.  (13. 14. 15.  23.  25. 27.  29),  where 
the  very  same  word  is  seven  times  translated  simply  hypocrites.  This 
word  has  been  here  supposed  to  have  the  milder  sense  of  persons 
wholly  occupied  with  what  is  outward,  in  allusion  to  its  primary 
(or  secondary  sense)  of  a  masked  actor  or  performer.  But  the  usual 
unfavourable  sense  of  a  dissembler  or  deceiver  is  entirely  appropriate 
to  these  men,  who  could  confidently  foretell  the  changes  of  the 
weather  by  its  dubious  and  variable  signs,  and  yet  were  constantly 
demanding  some  addition  to  the  proofs  already  given  that  the  ful¬ 
ness  of  the  time  was  come,  and  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ  long 
promised  in  the  Scriptures  and  expected  by  the  people.  Discern 
(distinguish)  the  face.,  or  outward  appearance  as  Cranmer  renders 
it.  (Tyndale  and  Geneva  have  the  old  word  fashion.')  Signs  of 
the  times.,  miraculous  and  other  indications  that  the  days  of  the 
Messiah  have  arrived.  The  remainder  of  the  answer  (in  v.  4) 
is  the  same,  word  for  word,  with  that  in  12,  39,  and  there 
explained.  The  variation  in  the  epithets  {evil  and  wicked)  is 
confined  to  the  translation.  This  exact  repetition  of  his  own 
words  is  so  far  from  being  improbable,  that  we  may  readily  be¬ 
lieve  him  to  have  uttered  them  in  many  other  cases  not  recorded.  (See 
above,  on  pp.  105-6.)  The  comparison  with  Jonah  is  not  here  carried 
out,  as  in  the  former  instance,  possibly  because  some  of  the  same  persons 
joined  in  the  demand  on  both  occasions.  Instead  of  giving  this  addi¬ 
tion,  IMatthew  here  says,  that  leaving  them  behind,  he  loent  away^ 
which  may  imply  an  abrupt  and  indignant  movement,  correspond¬ 
ing  to  Mark’s  statement,  that  as  he  answered  them,  he  sighed  (or 
groaned)  in  his  spirit.,  i.  e.  was  internally  and  deeply  moved  wuth 
grief  and  anger  at  their  obstinate  and  hopeless  unbelief.  (See  Mark 
8,  12,  and  compare  Mark  3,  5.) 

5.  And  when  his  disciples  were  come  to  the  other  side, 
they  had  forgotten  to  take  bread. 

The  exact  translation,  coming  to  the  other  side  forgot.,  seems  to 
mean  that  they  neglected,  after  their  arrival  on  the  other  side,  to  make 
provision  for  their  journey  onward,  which  may  have  been  into  a  desert 
region.  Bread,  in  Greek  the  usual  plural  form,  distinguishing  the 
separate  cakes  or  loaves,  and  here  denoting  the  accustomed  provision 
for  the  company,  especially  when  going  on  a  j  ourney. 


6.  Then  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Take  heed  and  be¬ 
ware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  and  of  the  Sadducees. 

By  what  would  be  a  curious  coincidence  where  mere  men  were 
exclusively  concerned  our  Lord  begins,  probably  after  they  had  thought 
of  their  neglect  to  carry  bread  and  had  begun  to  be  solicitous  about  it, 
a  parabolical  discourse,  in  which  he  draws  his  illustration  from  the 


MATTHEW  16,6.7. 


431 


customary  mode  of  making  bread,  i.  e.  with  yeast  or  leaven.  As  this 
substance  draws  its  useful  quality  from  fermentation,  and  as  this  may 
be  considered  as  incipient  corruption,  it  alfords  a  natural  and  striking 
emblem  of  the  same  thing  in  the  moral  world.  Hence  no  doubt  it  was 
excluded  from  the  sacrificial  rites  of  the  Mosaic  law  (Ex.  34.  25.  Lev. 
2, 11),  and  is  employed  so  uniformly  as  a  figure  for  depravity  or  de¬ 
pravation,  that  the  only  exception  commonly  admitted,  the  parable 
which  Luke  and  Matthew  join  with  that  of  the  mustard  seed  (see  above, 
on  13,  33),  is  thought  by  some  to  be  no  exception  at  all,  but  the  re¬ 
verse  or  wrong  side  of  the  parable  just  mentioned,  and  designed  to 
show  the  spreading  tendency  of  evil  no  less  than  of  good,  not  only  in  the 
world  but  even  in  the  church  of  God.  However  this  may  be,  it  is  cer¬ 
tain  that  our  Lord  here  makes  use  of  the  emblem  in  a  bad  sense,  when 
he  tells  his  disciples  to  Ijeware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Fhainsees.  Tahe 
heef  literally,  see,  i.  e.  see  to  it,  be  on  your  guard.  Beware  of  the  ex¬ 
pression  used  above,  in  7, 15. 10,  17.  and  there  explained.  The  particular 
corruption  to  which  Christ  applies  this  figurative  term  is  that  of  the 
Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  or  according  to  Mark  (8,  15),  that  of  the 
Pharisees  and  of  Herod.  The  leaven  of  the  Pharisees,  against  which 
the  disciples  are  here  warned,  is  nothing  peculiar  to  or  characteristic  of 
them,  but  something  common  to  them  with  the  Sadducees  and  Herod, 
and  all  others  who  professed  the  true  religion  without  really  possess¬ 
ing  it.  Our  Lord  might  therefore  have  connected  all  these  names,  and 
others  too,  without  the  slightest  incongruity,  because  he  is  referring  to 
the  points  in  which  they  are  alike,  and  not  the  points  in  which  they 
differ.  What  the  point  of  contact  and  agreement  was  between  these 
most  dissimilar  and  hostile  parties  will  be  seen  below  (on  v.  12).  In 
the  mean  time  their  conjunction  by  our  Saviour  may  be  likened  to  the 
language  of  a  zealous  preacher  now,  who  should  exhort  his  hearers  to 
be  careful  that  their  piety  is,not  that  of  a  Papist,  a  Jew,  or  a  Mahom¬ 
etan,  but  that  of  a  true  Christian.  The  sense  of  such  an  exhortation 
would  be  evident,  but  who  would  charge  it  with  confounding  inimical, 
nay  opposite  religions  ? 

7.  And  they  reasoned  among  themselves,  saying,  (It 
is)  because  we  have  taken  no  bread. 

Reasoned,  reckoned,  or  considered  through  and  through.  In  them¬ 
selves,  that  is,  each  within  his  own  breast,  but  also,  as  we  learn  from 
Mark  (8, 16),  to  (or  with)  each  other.  This  does  not  imply  dispute, 
but  oniy  earnest  conversation  and  comparison  of  views,  in  which  they 
seem  to  have  agreed,  since  they  are  all  represented  as  saying,  i.  e.  in 
substance :  (it  is,  or  he  says  this)  because  zee  have  not  tahen  bread.  This 
little  circumstance,  which  none  but  a  true  history  would  have  given, 
speaks  volumes  as  to  the  simplicity  and  ignorance  of  Christ’s  disciples, 
even  after  they  had  been  so  long  in  contact  with  him,  and  had  gone 
forth  from  him  as  apostles  preaching  and  performing  miracles.  With 
respect  to  the  error  hero  recorded,  however  childish  it  may  now  seem, 
it  becomes  us  to  remember  that  many  who  deride  such  blunders  as  ab- 


432 


MATTHEW  16,7-10. 

surd,  if  not  impossible,  would  probably  have  made  the  same  if  placed 
in  the  same  situation,  with  their  thoughts  running  upon  bread,  and  a 
mysterious  intimation  from  their  master  about  leaven.  Accustomed  as 
they  were  to  hear  him  speak  in  riddles  on  the  plainest  subjects,  why 
might  they  not  without  absurdity  suppose  him  to  be  doing  so  now  ? 

8.  (Which)  when  Jesus  perceived,  he  said  unto  them, 
0  ye  of  little  faith,  v/hy  reason  ye  among  yourselves,  be¬ 
cause  ye  have  brought  no  bread  ? 

But  although  not  utterly  irrational,  and  therefore  not  deserving  our 
contempt,  this  error  was  still  culpable  and  merited  their  Lord’s  rebuke. 
When  Jesus  Icneio  {it)  seems  to  imply  that  he  afterwards  discovered  it, 
an  idea  not  suggested  by  the  Greek  or  by  a  close  translation.  Jesus 
Tenoioing^  i.  e.  on  the  same  spot  and  at  the  moment,  what  they  said,  and 
what  they  thought.  Why  reason  ye  because  ye  hare  not  tahen  bread  ?  i.  e. 
why  connect  what  I  have  just  said  with  your  want  of  bread,  and  try  to 
give  my  words  a  meaning  in  relation  to  that  trifling  matter  ?  It  is  not 
their  want  of  perspicacity  in  seeing  what  he  meant  for  which  he  blames 
them,  but  the  undue  anxiety  about  mere  temporalities  which  occupied 
their  minds,  and  made  them  thus  incapable  of  knowing  what  ho 
meant,  or  at  least  that  he  was  talking  upon  higher  subjects. 

9.  Do  ye  not  understand,  neither  remember  the  five 
loaves  of  the  five  thousand,  and  how  many  baskets  ye  took 

up  ? 

10.  Neither  the  seven  loaves  of  the  four  thousand,  and 
how  many  baskets  ye  took  up.^ 

Do  ye  not  yet  jyerceire  the  drift  of  my  discourses,  and  the  end  to 
which  my  teachings  are  all  tending,  or  comprehend  at  least  my  general 
purpose  ?  If  you  have  not  strength  of  intellect  sufficient  to  divine  or 
comprehend  my  meaning,  have  you  not  at  least  some  memory  of  what 
has  passed  so  lately  in  your  presence,  before  our  eyes,  and  through 
j' our  very  hands  ?  This  reproach,  it  will  be  seen  at  once,  relates  not 
so  much  to  their  misapprehension  of  his  words  about  the  leaven,  as  to 
their  extreme  anxiety  about  the  bread,  which  not  only  distracted  and 
preoccupied  their  thoughts,  but  indicated  want  of  faith  in  his  capacity 
to  help  them  and  provide  for  thenf.  Although  he  never  performed 
miracles  where  ordinary  means  would  answer  the  same  purpose,  they 
had  surely  no  occasion  to  be  troubled  at  the  want  of  bread,  when  he 
had  twice  created  it  to  feed  not  single  individuals  but  thousands.  As 
already  hinted  (see  above,  on  15,  37),  the  two  kinds  of  baskets  arc  dis¬ 
tinguished  here  by  both  evangelists,  as  in  the  narrative  itself,  so  that 
the  difference  cannot  be  unmeaning  or  fortuitous ;  and  if  the  two  ac¬ 
counts  of  the  two  miracles  are  merely  two  traditions  of  the  same  thing, 


433 


MATTHEW  16,10-13. 

then  these  words  of  Christ  referring  to  them  as  distinct  events  must 
also  be  explained  away.  The  Jive  leaves  of  the  Jive  thousand,  i.  e.  the  five 
and  the  five  thousand,  the  seven  and  the  four  thousand,  now  so  memor¬ 
able  in  my  history  and  yours,  but  which  you  seem  so  strangely  to  have 
since  forgotten. 

11.  How  is  it  that  ye  do  not  understand  that  I  spake 
(it)  not  to  you  concerning  bread,  that  ye  should  beware 
of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  and  of  the  Sadducees  ? 

12.  Then  understood  they  how  that  he  bade  (them) 
not  beware  of  the  leaven  of  bread,  but  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Pharisees  and  of  the  Sadducees. 

How  is  it  that  ye  do  not  consider  (or  perceive),  not  my  parables  or 
enigmatical  teachings  till  they  are  explained,  but  the  design  of  my  in¬ 
structions,  as  relating  not  to  bread  but  to  religion,  and  the  import  of 
my  miracles,  as  proving  my  capacity  to  feed  you  even  by  creating  food, 
should  that  be  needful.  Had  they  duly  considered  what  his  miracles 
implied,  they  would  not  have  had  their  minds  engrossed  by  bread,  or 
by  the  want  of  bread,  when  he  was  speaking,  and  would  then  have  un¬ 
derstood,  if  not  precisely  what  he  meant  by  leaven,  yet  at  least  that  he 
did  not  mean  the  leaven  used  in  making  bread.  This  seems  to  be  the 
natural  connection  of  the  thoughts,  even  in  the  narrative  of  Mark  (8, 
21),  who  stops  short  at  this  laconic  question,  without  any  further  ref¬ 
erence  to  the  meaning  of  the  leaven.  This  shows  that  his  design  was 
not  to  elucidate  that  figure,  but  to  illustrate  the  condition  of  the 
twelve  at  this  important  juncture.  But  we  here  learn  that  before  the 
conversation  ended,  they  understood  that  by  leaven  he  intended  doc¬ 
trine,  not  opinions  or  distinctive  tenets,  as  to  which  the  parties  named 
could  not  have  been  described  together,  but  their  mode  of  teaching  and 
expounding  spiritual  truth,  which  in  all  these  cases  was  more  or  less 
external,  superficial,  ceremonial,  and  in  that  sense  might  be  called  hy¬ 
pocrisy,  but  also  in  the  stronger  sense  of  insincerity.  (See  above,  on 
v.  3.) 

13.  When  Jesus  came  into  the  coasts  of  Cesarea  Phil¬ 
ippi,  he  asked  his  disciples,  saying,  Whom  do  men  say 
that  I,  the  Son  of  man,  am  ? 

Here  may  be  said  to  begin  a  new  division  of  our  Lord’s  official  his¬ 
tory,  in  which  he  prepared  the  minds  of  his  disciples  for  the  great  events 
before  them  by  imparting  clear  views  of  his  own  mission  as  a  sufferer. 
This  necessary  process  of  instruction  he  begins  by  ascertaining  how  far 
they  already  recognized  and  understood  his  claims  as  the  Messiah.  Of 
this  interesting  conversation  we  have  three  harmonious  accounts,  Luke 
(9, 18)  here  again  becoming  parallel  with  Mark  (8,  27)  and  Matthew. 
Neither  evangelist  assigns  the  date  of  this  transaction,  even  by  connect- 

19 


434 


MATTHEW  16,13.14. 

ing  it  expressly  with  the  previous  context  as  immediately  successive. 
The  natural  presumption  is,  however,  in  the  absence  of  all  indications 
to  the  contrary,  that  these  disclosures  followed,  and  most  probably 
without  an  interval  of  any  length,  the  miracles  and  teachings  which 
immediately  precede  them  in  the  narrative.  The  place  (not  specified 
by  Luke)  is  given  both  by  Mark  and  Matthew  as  the  region  or  terri¬ 
tory  (Mark  milages^  Matt,  parts')  of  Cesarea  Philippi  (i.  e.  Philiph 
Cesarea).  This  was  a  city  of  Upper  Galilee,  near  one  source  of  the 
Jordan,  as  the  ancient  Dan  or  Laish  (Josh.  19,47.  Judg.  18,27-29) 
occupied  the  other.  It  was  at  the  foot  of  Ilermon.  and  was  called  by 
the  Greeks  Paneas^  a  word  still  preserved  by  the  local  tradition  as  the 
name  of  a  village  (Banicis)  on  the  same  site.  To  distinguish  it  from 
Cesarea  on  the  sea-coast  {Cesarea  of  Palestine^  originally  called  Stra- 
to/v’s  Toioer),  so  often  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  it  received 
the  additional  name  PMligopi  {Philipps  or  of  Philip))  from  the  tetrarch 
of  Itrurea  and  Trachonitis  (Luke  3, 1),  brother  of  Antipas  and  husband 
of  Salome  (see  above,  on  14, 6),  by  whom  it  had  been  rebuilt  or  beau¬ 
tified,  and  named  Cesarea  in  honor  of  Tiberius.  Into  the  vilhiges  or 
towns  dependent  upon  this  important  city  Jesus  came  with  his  disci¬ 
ples,  when  or  whence  is  not  recorded.  Most  interpreters,  however,  in¬ 
ferring  chronological  succession  from  historical  juxtaposition,  under¬ 
stand  this  to  have  happened  on  a  journey  from  Bethsaida  Julias  (see 
Mark  8,  22)  to  Cesarea  Philippi.  As  a  sample  of  the  mode  in  which 
the  ablest  Germans  harmonize  the  gospels,  it  may  here  be  mentioned 
that  De  Wette  represents  as  a  material  variation  between  IMark  and 
Matthew,  that  the  latter  speaks  of  Jesus  haring  come  to  the  vicinity  of 
Cesarea  when  he  put  this  question,  while  the  former  saj^s  he  asked  it 
in  the  way  (or  on  the  road)  to  that  place.  Even  if  this  were  true,  the 
usage  of  the  participle  aorist  is  wide  enough  to  cover  any  discrepancy 
thence  arising,  haring  come  and  coming  being  almost  convertible  expres¬ 
sions.  But  the  critic  has  himself  fallen  into  the  mistake  which  he  im¬ 
putes  to  the  evangelist,  by  not  observing  that  in  the  loay  is  mentioned 
after  the  arrival  at  Cesarea,  and  refers  not  to  the  journe5^from  Bethsaida 
thither,  but  to  his  visitation  of  the  villages  or  parts  dependent  on  the 
former  town  as  a  provincial  capital.  He  came  among  those  villages  no 
doubt  to  exercise  his  ministry,  and  being  in  the  way  or  on  the  road,  i. 
e.  travelling  among  them,  for  this  purpose,  he  asked  or  questioned  his 
disciples  in  the  words  recorded  in  the  last  clause.  This  is  one  of  the 
imaginary  discrepancies  which  even  some  Christian  writers  represent 
as  quite  irreconcilable  without  the  use  of  disingenuous  harmonical  con¬ 
trivances.  Whom  do  men  say  (or  declare)  me  to  l)e  ?  the  Son  of  Man  ? 
This  is  the  order  of  the  words  in  Greek  and  the  natural  construction 
of  the  sentence.  The  common  version  makes  it  a  descrijDtion  of  him¬ 
self,  and  some  of  the  latest  critics  omit  me  altogether. 


14.  And  they  said,  some  (say  that  thou  art)  John  the 
Baptist ;  some,  Elias  ;  and  others,  Jeremias,  or  one  of 
the  prophets. 


MATTHEW  16,  14.  15.  16. 


435 


Their  answer  brings  to  light  the  same  diversity  of  judgment  or  con¬ 
jecture  before  mentioned  in  the  account  of  the  effect  produced  on  Her¬ 
od  by  the  miracles  of  Jesus  (14,  2),  but  beginning  with  the  notion  there 
ascribed  to  Antipas  himself,  perhaps  because  it  was  maintained  in  such 
high  places,  or  because  it  had  also  become  dominant  among  the  people. 
Elias^  Elijah  (see  Mark  6, 15).  One  of  the  'pro'pliets^  i.  e.  of  the  ancient 
or  Old  Testament  prophets  (Luke  9, 19),  either  in  the  vague  sense  of 
8ome  one^  or  as  this  sense  of  the  numeral  is  denied  by  eminent  inter¬ 
preters,  a  certain  one^  not  named.  It  seems  from  this  reply  that  not¬ 
withstanding  the  impression  made  by  our  Lord’s  miracles  and  teach¬ 
ings,  and  the  convictions  now  and  then  expressed  of  his  Messiahship-,  ^ 
the  great  mass,  even  of  those  friendly  to  him,  were  disposed  to  look 
upon  him  rather  as  the  Messiah’s  herald  or  forerunner  than  as  the 
Messiah  himself. 

15.  He  saith  unto  them,  But  whom  say  ye  that  I 
am  ? 

16.  And  Simon  Peter  answered  and  said,  Thou  art 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God. 

In  contradistinction  from  these  popular  impressions  he  demands  of 
them,  his  personal  attendants  and  more  confidential  followers,  in  what 
light  they  regarded  him.  As  if  he  had  said,  ‘  these  are  the  vague  ideas 
of  the  multitude ;  but  it  is  time  to  draw  the  line  between  them  and 
yourselves  by  making  a  profession  of  your  faith.’  But  ye — whom  do 
ye  say  (or  pronounce')  me  to  he  ?  Peter  answers  for  the  rest,  not  only 
from  his  rash  and  forward  disposition,  but  because  he  was  in  fact  their 
spokesman,  recognized  as  such  both  by  his  master  and  his  brethren, 
and  particularly  fitted  for  the  office  by  the  very  disposition  just  re¬ 
ferred  to.  (See  above,  on  10, 2.)  As  Mark  (8, 29)  introduces  this  con¬ 
fession  merely  to  complete  the  chain  of  incidents,  he  gives  Peter’s  an¬ 
swer  in  the  briefest  form,  containing  only  the  essential  proposition, 
Thou  art  the  Christy  the  Messiah,  which  are  Greek  and  Hebrew  syn- 
onymes  (see  above,  on  1,  1),  while  Luke  (9,  20)  employs  the  more 
emphatic  phrase,  the  Christ  of  God^  and  Matthew  the  still  more  de¬ 
scriptive  one,  the  Christy  the  Son  of  the  liring  God.  (See  above,  on  4, 

3.  8,  29.  14,  33.)  The  importance  of  this  first  express  acknowledgment 
of  Jesus  as  the  Christ  or  the  Messiah,  even  by  his  own  chosen  follow¬ 
ers,  arises  from  the  fact  that  all  his  public  actions  hitherto  implied  a 
claim  to  that  exalted  character,  and  that  in  consequence  the  truth  of 
this  claim  was  essential  to  the  proof,  not  only  of  his  public  mission  but 
of  his  personal  veracity.  The  claim  itself  had  reference  to  the  clear 
prediction  of  a  Great  Deliverer  in  the  ancient  prophecies,  expressly 
called  Messiah,  or  Anointed,  both  by  David  (Ps.  2,  2)  and  by  Daniel 
(9,  25),  and  by  implication  so  described  in  all  the  scriptures  which  ex¬ 
hibit  him  as  filling  the  great  theocratical  offices  of  Prophet,  Priest,  and 
King,  in  which  the  previous  incumbents  only  held  his  place  till  he 


436 


MATTHEW  16,16.17.18. 


should  come,  and  to  which  they  were  set  apart  by  unction,  the  ap¬ 
pointed  symbol  of  those  spiritual  gifts  which  fitted  men  for  these  high 
functions,  and  which  he  was  to  possess  without  measure.  All  this  Je¬ 
sus  claimed,  and  all  this  Peter  acknowledged  him  to  be,  not  only  as  a 
private  individual  when  the  truth  was  first  suggested  to  him  by  his 
brother  Andrew  (John  1,  41),  but  now  as  it  were  ex  officio,  in  the  name 
of  all  the  twelve,  and  in  response  to  an  authoritative  question  from  the 
Lord  himself. 

17.  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Blessed 
art  thou,  Simon  Bar-jona  :  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not 
revealed  (it)  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  (is)  in 
heaven. 

In  reply  to  Peter’s  confession,  our  Lord,  as  it  were,  confesses  Peter. 
(See  above,  on  10,  32.)  Blessed.,  happy,  with  specific  reference  to  the  di¬ 
vine  favour.  (See  above,  on  5,  3.)  Some  suppose  a  reference  to  all  the 
names  here  mentioned  as  significant,  not  only  to  Peter.^  but  to  Simon^ 
as  derived  from  the  verb  to  hear  and  sometimes  to  obey,  and  Bar-Jona^ 
son  of  a  dove,  denoting  harmlessness  (see  above,  on  10, 16),  or  used  as  a 
symbol  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (see  above,  on  3,  16).  Another  explanation 
is,  that  the  Son  of  Man  was  as  certainly  the  Son  of  God  as  Simon  was 
the  Son  of  Jonah.  Bar  is  the  Chaldee  word  for  Bon,  used  in  the 
prophecy  of  Daniel  (7,  13),  to  w^hich  our  Lord’s  question  probably 
alludes.  Flesh  and  Mood,  i.  e.  human  nature,  or  humanity  or  man,  as 
opposed  to  God.  (See  Gal.  1, 16.  Eph.  6,  12.  1  Cor.  15,  50.)  He  had 
derived  this  knowledge  from  no  human  source,  either  in  himself  or 
others,  but  from  a  divine  illumination.  As  the  question  of  our  Lord 
in  V.  13  was  addressed  to  all  the  twelve  (vix^is),  and  as  Peter,  in  this  as 
well  as  other  cases,  speaks  in  the  name  of  all,  the  blessing  must  be  un¬ 
derstood  as  equally  extensive,  though  in  form  directed  only  to  the 
spokesman.  There  is  no  ground  whatever  for  assuming  that  the  others 
did  not  share  in  his  conviction,  or  that  they  obtained  it  in  a  different 
manner.  (See  above,  on  14,  33,  and  compare  John  1,  50.)  Nor  do  the 
Saviour’s  words  imply  a  sudden  unexpected  revelation  of  something 
entirely  unknown  before. 

18.  And  I  say  also  unto  thee,  That  thou  art  Peter, 
and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church  ;  and  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it. 

This  is  the  passage  upon  which  the  Church  of  Rome  rests  its  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Papal  Supremacy,  in  which  it  is  assumed  that  the  address 
is  exclusively  to  Peter,  not  in  his  representative  capacity,  but  as  an  in¬ 
dividual  apostle,  and  in  reply  to  his  personal  confession.  It  is  also  as¬ 
sumed  that  he  is  here  declared  to  be  the  foundation  of  the  church,  and 
that  as  the  foundation  of  a  building  must  be  as  lasting  as  the  edifice 
itself,  the  promise  is  to  Peter  and  the  bishops  of  Rome  as  his  succes- 


MATTHEW  16,  18. 


437 


sors.  In  opposition  to  this  forced  interpretation,  many  Protestants 
adopt  one  scarcely  less  so,  namely,  that  the  rock  referred  to  in  the 
promise  is  not  Peter’s  person  but  his  confession,  or  the  doctrine  which 
he  had  confessed,  to  wit,  the  Messiahship  and  deity  of  Jesus.  To  this 
construction  there  are  two  objections ;  first,  that  it  is  unnatural  and 
secondly,  that  it  is  needless.  It  is  unnatural  because  it  supposes  an 
abrupt  transition  from  one  subject  to  another,  without  any  thing  to 
intimate  it  or  prepare  for  it,  to  wit,  from  Peter’s  name  to  his  confes¬ 
sion,  which  is  then  moreover  arbitrarily  expressed  by  an  unusual 
figure,  not  peculiarly  adapted  to  suggest  it.  Such  assumptions  can  be 
justified  by  nothing  short  of  an  extreme  exegetical  necessity,  which 
does  not  here  exist.  For  in  the  next  place,  this  construction  is  not  only 
unnatural  but  needless,  even  for  the  purpose  of  refuting  the  pretensions 
of  the  Papal  See,  which  rest  upon  a  series  of  gratuitous  and  false  as¬ 
sumptions.  Even  granting  all  the  rest  that  is  assumed  in  this  inter¬ 
pretation,  it  is  false  that  the  Popes  are  in  any  sense  whatever  the  suc¬ 
cessors  of  St.  Peter.  It  is  false  that  the  Apostle,  as  such,  has  or  can  have 
a  successor.  It  is  inconsistent  v/ith  the  very  image  here  used  of  a  rock 
or  stone  as  the  foundation  of  a  building,  which  would  then  be  repre¬ 
sented,  not  as  continuing  unmoved  forever,  but  as  being  constantly 
renewed  and  changed,  which  is  absurd  both  in  the  sign  and  the  thing 
signified.  Another  false  assumption  is  that  even  if  these  words  were 
addressed  to  Peter  as  an  individual  apostle,  without  reference  to  the 
rest,  they  necessarily  imply  a  primacy  or  permanent  superiority  of 
rank  or  office.  That  no  such  consequence  need  follow  even  from  the 
most  exclusive  application  of  the  words,  is  clear  from  the  equally  legit¬ 
imate  and  much  more  natural  construction  that  may  be  put  upon  them  ; 
not,  as  some  propose,  that  Peter  was  to  lay  the  first  stone  of  the 
church,  which  would  represent  him,  not  as  a  foundation  but  a  founder; 
but  that  he  was  to  be  himself  among  the  first  stones  laid  by  the  great 
master  builder,  and  that  on  him,  as  a  part  of  the  foundation,  the  church 
was  to  be  reared  by  the  accession  of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  as  for  in¬ 
stance  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  at  the  conversion  of  Cornelius. 
But  although  this  is  a  far  more  natural  interpretation  of  the  words  if 
addressed  exclusively  to  Peter,  than  the  Romish  one,  the  fact  that  they 
are  so  addressed  is  far  from  being  certain  or  beyond  dispute.  It  is 
somewhat  curious  that  the  same  interpreters  who  most  gratuitously  in¬ 
troduce  a  reference  to  the  Popes,  which  is  at  variance  with  the  very 
figure  here  employed,  deny  the  obvious  allusion  to  the  twelve  col¬ 
lectively  or  as  a  body.  That  our  Lord’s  main  purpose  was  not,  as  the 
Romanists  allege,  to  honour  and  exalt  this  one  Apostle  at  the  cost  of 
all  the  rest,  is  clear  from  its  omission  by  the  other  two  evangelists,  who 
stop  short  at  the  end  of  Peter’s  own  confession  (Mark  8,  29.  Luke  9, 
20).  This  is  something  very  different  from  the  usual  omissions  in  the 
parallel  accounts.  Had  Mark  and  Luke  omitted  the  occurrence  alto¬ 
gether,  or  merely  given  it  more  briefly,  no  conclusion  could  be  drawn 
from  such  a  difference.  But  if  Peter’s  exaltation  is  the  main  design 
of  this  address,  what  precedes  (in  vs.  13-lG)  is  simply  introductory. 
Now  how  can  we  believe  that  two  of  the  evangelists  would  only  give 


438 


MATTHEW  16,18. 

the  introduction,  and  then  leave  out  what  it  introduces  ?  Another 
reason  for  believing  that  these  words  do  not  relate  exclusively  to  Peter, 
if  at  all,  may  be  derived  from  the  continual  allusions  to  the  twelve  as 
a  collective  body,  even  in  the  types  of  the  Old  Testament,  especially 
the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel,  as  the  framework  of  the  old  theocracy,  but 
still  more  clearly  in  the  promise  to  the  apostolic  body  founded  on  this 
ancient  constitution  (Matt.  19,  28),  in  the  repetition  of  the  same  thing 
in  a  different  form  elsewhere  (Eph.  2,  20),  and  in  the  symbolical 
description  of  the  twelve  foundations  of  the  New  Jerusalem 
(Rev.  21,  14),  of  which  it  has  been  w^ell  said,  that  if  one  of  the 
twelve  stones  is  to  be  displaced  and  put  beneath  the  rest,  the 
whole  will  fall  to  pieces.  But  besides  these  analogies  from  other 
parts  of  Scripture,  and  the  frequent  appearances  of  Peter  as  the 
spokesman  of  the  apostolic  body  (see  above,  on  10,2),  which  create  a 
strong  presumption  that  he  acts  so  here,  we  have  sufficient  ground  for 
so  affirming  in  the  context,  where  we  find  that  Peter’s  confession  Was 
in  answer  to  a  question  addressed  to  the  whole  company  {whom  say  ye 
that  I  ami  v.  15).  And  what  is  here  said  of  Peter  is  in  substance 
elsewhere  said  of  all,  as  we  shall  see  upon  the  next  verse.  It  will  here 
be  sufficient  to  refer  to  Eph.  2, 20,  where  believers  (of  whom  the  church 
is  certainly  composed)  are  said  to  be  “  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the 
apostles  and  prophets  (or  inspired  teachers).”  What  is  there  affirmed 
of  all  cannot  here  be  said  exclusively  of  one,  and  therefore,  if  these 
words  relate  to  Peter  at  all,  it  can  only  be  in  common  wdth  the  rest, 
and  as  their  representative.  But  however  possible  or  even  probable 
this  reference  may  be,  it  is  not  absolutely  certain,  but  is  open  to  some 
very  strong  objections,  none  of  which  can  be  regarded  as  conclusive  in 
itself,  nor  perhaps  in  conjunction  with  the  rest,  but  the  aggregate  of 
which  does  certainly  make  out  a  strong  case  in  opposition  to  this  doc- 
-  trine.  In  the  first  place,  the  figure  of  a  rock,  although  susceptible  like 
others  of  indefinitely  various  applications,  is  especially  appropriated  in 
the  Scriptures  to  the  divine  character  and  attributes/so  that,  as  it  has 
been  well  said  by  a  living  writer,*  the  spirit  of  the  whole,  and 
not  of  one  place  merely,  is,  Who  is  a  rq£lL-.sar¥0-~oamAlod '?  ”  See 
Deut.  32,  4.  15.  18.  30.  31.  37.  I'BaimX^  2  Sam.  22,  2.  3.  32.  47. 
23,  3.  Ps.  19,  14.  28,  1.  31,  2.  3.  42,  9.  62,  2.  6.  7.  71,  3.  73,  26,  78, 
37.  89,  26.  94,  22.  95,  1.  Isai.  17,  10.  26,  4.  30,  29.  44,  8.  Hab.  1,  12. 
Rom.  9,  33.  1  Cor.  10,4.  1  Pet.  2,  8.  In  all  these  places  the  term 
rock  is  applied  directly  either  to  Jehovah  or  to  Christ.  Nor  is  it  ever 
applied,  even  by  the  strongest  figure,  to  a  merely  human  subject. 
This  remarkable  usage  is  at  least  sufficient  to  create  a  strong  pre¬ 
sumption,  that  the  figure  here  is  not  applied  to  any  mere  man.  In  the 
second  place,  it  is  exceedingly  unusual,  if  not  wholly  unexampled,  to 
employ  the  demonstrative  {this)  in  application  to.  the  object  of  address ; 
whereas  our  Lord  repeatedly  applies  it  to  himself.  See  John  2, 19.  6, 
5.  Matt.  3,  3.  21,  44,  in  which  last  place,  by  a  remarkable  coincidence, 
^le  calls  himself  this  stone.  In  the  third  place,  the  diversity  of  form 


*  Christopher  Wordsworth. 


MATTHEW  16,  18. 


439 


and  gender  in  the  Greek  words  (nerpos  and  TreVpu)  is  too  abrupt  and 
marked  to  be  unmeaning  and  fortuitous,  or  explicable  simply  on  the 
ground,  that  the  masculine  form  was  used  in  speaking  of  a  man.  But 
if  they  are  synonymous,  as  commonly  assumed,  why  should  the  femi¬ 
nine  be  used  at  all,  the  rather  as  it  weakens  and  obscures  the  reference 
to  Peter,  if  intended,  which  would  certainly  have  been  more  clear  and 
striking  if  the  same  Greek  word  had  been  repeated,  “  thou  art  Peter  (i. 
e.  rock),  and  on  this  Peter  (i.  e.  rock)  will  I  build  my  church,”  The 
assertion  usually  made,  that  this  distinction  exists  only  in  the  Greek, 
and  that  in  our  Lord’s  vernacular  the  same  form  was  repeated,  as  it  is 
in  the  Peshito,  or  old  Syriac  version,  is  doubly  insufficient  to  effect  its 
purpose ;  first,  because  it  is  gratuitous,  assuming  without  proof  the  fact 
on  which  it  rests  ;  and  then,  because  this  fact,  even  if  it  be  admitted, 
leaves  the  language  used  by  Matthew  unexplained.  Without  insisting, 
as  some  recent  writers  are  disposed  to  do,  that  our  Saviour  uttered  this 
address  in  Greek,  or  even  that  he  introduced  these  two  Greek  words, 
a  practice  perfectly  familiar  to  the  Chaldee  paraphrasts  and  Syriac 
translators,  it  is  altogether  arbitrary  to  assume  that  the  Aramaic  dia¬ 
lect  of  Palestine  at  that  time  could  not  furnish  two  equivalents  to  these 
two  Greek  words.  It  has  even  been  alleged  on  high  authority  (Light- 
foot)  that  Geplias  itself  bears  the  same  relation  to  the  Syriac  word  Ge- 

plia  that  Petros  does  to  Petra^  and  that  both  may  have  been 

used  on  this  occcasion.  But  even  granting  that  the  same  word  was 
repeated,  it  might  be,  as  in  so  many  other  cases,  with  a  difference  of 
meaning,  not  entirely  clear  at  first,  but  having  that  peculiar  enigmati¬ 
cal  significance,  which  formed  so  prominent  a  feature  in  the  Saviour’s 
bibaxq  or  method  of  instruction.  This  double  sense  of  one  word  has 
been  sometimes  preserved  even  in  Greek  (compare  the  double  sense  of 
dead^  veKpovs,  in  Matt.  8,  22  and  the  parallels,  as  commonly  explained ; 
that  of  ■yp'vxv  hi  10,  39 ;  that  of  mtk  in  J ohn  2,  19.  20),  while  in  the 
case  before  us  the  usage  of  that  language  furnished  two  forms  to  ex¬ 
press  the  kindred  but  distinct  ideas.  The  classical  use  of  nerpos  and 
rrerpa  is  entirely  distinct,  the  latter  answering  to  roch  and  the  former 
to  sto?ie,  the  two  being  scarcely  ever  interchanged  even  by  poetic  li¬ 
cence.  See  Passow  (edited  by  Post  and  Palen),  Liddell  and  Scott,  and 
all  the  late  New  Testament  Greek  lexicons,  sub  vocibus.  This  remark¬ 
able  fact  makes  it  still  more  difficult  to  understand  why  Matthew 
should  have  used  both  forms  if  Christ  employed  but  one  or  only  in  one 
sense,  when  the  masculine  form  ('/rerpo?)  would  have  answered  every 
purpose.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  this  variation  of  the  form  is  studied 
and  significant,  it  serves  to  corroborate  the  previous  objections  to  ap¬ 
plying  the  term  roch  to  Peter.  By  retaining  the  invariable  classical 
distinction  between  Tverpos  (stone)  and  nerpa  (rock),  we  not  only  adhere 
faithfully  to  usage  (penes  quern  est  norma  loquendi)^  and  do  justice  to 
the  writer’s  careful  choice  of  his  expressions,  but  obtain  a  meaning 
perfectly  appropriate  and  striking,  namely,  that  while  Peter  was  a 
stone,  i.  e.  a  fragment  of  the  rock,  his  Master  was  the  rock  itself.  The 
same  contrast  between  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  or  believers  in  general, 


440 


MATTHEW  16,18. 


as  the  rock  and  stones,  or  the  chief  corner-stone  and  those  laid  on  it, 
reappears  in  Eph.  2,  20  and  1  Pet.  2,  4—8.  This  explanation,  far  from 
being  new,  is  one  of  the  most  ancient  upon  record,  being  eloquently 
amplified  by  several  of  the  Fathers,*  and  acknovrledged  even  by  the  most 
ambitious  of  the  Popes.f  But  if  to  any  it  should  seem  less  natural 
than  that  -which  applies  the  figure  of  a  rock  to  Peter,  although  con¬ 
trary,  as  we  have  seen  to  settled  usage,  it  has  been  already  shown  that 
there  are  cogent  reasons  for  applying  it  to  him  in  his  representative 
capacity.  But  even  if  restricted  to  himself  among  the  twelve,  we  have 
also  seen  that  it  implies  no  permanent  superiorit}^,  and  still  less  a  de¬ 
rivative  authority  in  any  claiming  to  be  his  successors.  It  thus  ap¬ 
pears  that  whether  this  rode  mean  our  Lord  himself  or  Peter,  it  is  easy 
to  refute  the  papal  claims,  erected  upon  this  expression,  without  re¬ 
sorting  to  any  forced  or  fanciful  construction.  I  will  huild  (as  some¬ 
thing  yet  to  be  accomplished)  my  churdi,  a  Greek  word,  which  accord¬ 
ing  to  its  etymology  means  something  called  out  or  evoked,  and  by  im¬ 
plication  called  together  or  convoked,  as  a  separate  assembly  or  society, 
selected  from  a  greater  number.  As  in  the  classics  it  denotes  the  popu¬ 
lar  assemblies  of  the  Greek  republics,  and  especially  of  Athens  (com¬ 
pare  Acts  19,  32.  39.  41),  so  in  the  Septuagint  version  it  had  long  been 
used  to  represent  a  Hebrew  word  (^tip)  denoting  the  host  or  congre¬ 
gation  of  Israel.  To  the  Greek-speaking  Jews,  therefore,  it  had  already 
a  religious  import,  and  would  here  be  understood  as  meaning  that  the 
Saviour  was  about  to  found  such  a  society,  and  to  found  it  on  the  rock 
just  mentioned.  To  this  society  he  promises  perpetual  security.  Hell 
is  not  the  word  so  rendered  in  5,  22.  29.  30.  11,  28,  but  that  employed 
in  11,  23,  and  there  explained  to  mean  the  unseen  world,  or  the  abode 
of  disembodied  spirits,  the  condition  of  the  dead,  without  regard  to 
their  character  and  state  of  suffering  or  misery.  It  cannot  therefore 
well  be  understood  in  this  place  as  denoting  what  we  call  the  powers 
of  darkness,  or  the  devil  and  his  angels,  but  is  rather  a  strong  figure 
for  death  or  destruction,  corresponding  to  the  gates  of  the  grave  in  Isai. 
38,  10,  and  the  gates  of  death  in  Ps.  107, 18.  The  very  combination 
here  used  is  also  found  in  AEsch3dus  and  Homer,  and  explained  by  an 
old  Greek  scholiast  as  a  periphrasis  for  death  (negbpaens  Zavarov). 
Gates  has  been  variously  explained  to  mean  the  entrance,  the  defences, 
the  militaiy  force,  and  the  judicial  power.  Prevail  against  is  by  some 
comparatively  understood  as  meaning  to  be  stronger  than,  but  com- 

*  Petra  principale  nomen  est ;  ideo  Petrus  a  Petra,  non  Petra  a  Petro,  quo- 
modo  non  a  Christiano  Christus,  sed  a  Christo  Christianus  vocatur.  Tu  es  ergo, 
inquit,  Petrus,  et  super  hanc  Petram,  quam  confessus  es,  super  hanc  Petram, 
quam  cognovisti  dicens,  Tu  es  Christus  filius  Dei  vivi,  sedificabo  ecclesiam  meam, 
id  est,  super  meipsum,  Filium  Dei  vivi,  sedificabo  ecclesiam  meam.  Super  me 
sedificabo  te,  non  super  te.” — Augustine.  (In  his  earlier  expositions  he  applied 
the  words  to  Peter)  “Ecclesia  Catholica  super  Petram  Christum  stabili  radice 
fundata  est.” — Jerome.. 

t  Baronius  relates  that  when  Hildebrand  (Gregory  VII.)  deposed  Henry  IV., 
he  sent  a  crown  to  Rudolph  inscribed  with  this  hexameter.  “  Petra  dedit  Petro, 
Petrus  diadema  Rodolpho.” 


441 


MATTHEW  16,18.19. 

monly  as  signifying  victory  or  conquest.  Whatever  be  the  sense  of 
the  particular  expressions,  the  essential  meaning  evidently  is,  that 
nothing  should  destroy  the  safety  of  the  church  to  be  erected  on  the 
rock  here  mentioned. 


19.  And  I  will  give  imto  tliee  the  keys  of  the  king¬ 
dom  of  heaven  :  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth 
shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt 
loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven. 

The  abrupt  transition  from  the  figure  of  a  foundation-stone  to  that 
of  a  door-keeper,  although  not  impossible  or  wholly  unexampled  in  our 
Lord’s  discourses  (see  above,  on  9,  36.  37.  13, 20),  is  not  to  be  assumed 
without  necessity,  and  therefore  may  be  urged  as  an  objection  to  the 
supposition  that  the  rocTc  of  v.  18  is  Peter.  It  is  certainly  no  natural 
association  of  ideas,  that  the  keys  of  a  building  should  be  given  to  the 
rock  on  which  it  rests.  This  may  be  neutralized,  however,  by  observ¬ 
ing  that  it  is  equally  incongruous  for  a  rock  to  give  the  keys  as  to  re¬ 
ceive  them.  Ail  admit  that  this  verse  is  addressed  to  Peter,  as  repre¬ 
senting  either  his  associates  or  successors.  To  the  arguments  against 
this  last  assumption,  and  in  favour  of  the  other,  as  already  stated  (on 
V.  18),  may  now  be  added,  that  the  very  grant  here  made  to  Peter  is 
repeated  almost  in  the  same  words  in  the  next  chapter  (18, 18)  and  ad¬ 
dressed  to  the  whole  body  of  apostles.  The  only  question  here  is  in 
relation  to  the  power  bestowed.  The  figure  of  a  key  would  at  once 
suggest  the  idea  of  admission  and  exclusion  to  or  from  the  church 
here  called  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  (See  above,  on  3,  2.  4,  17.  5, 
3.  10.  19.  20.  7,  21.  8,  11.  10,  7.  11, 11.  12.  13, 11.  24.  31.  33.  45.  47. 
52.)  Even  as  an  individual  apostle,  Peter  may  be  said  to  have  exer¬ 
cised  this  power  in  the  reception  of  the  first  converts,  whether  Jews  or 
Gentiles,  and  in  the  exclusion  of  such  false  professors  as  Ananias  and 
Sapphira  and  Simon  Magus.  Acts  2,  38-41.  5,  5.  9.  8,  21.  10,  48.  As 
representing  the  whole  body  of  apostles,  he  may  be  said,  in  a  still 
wider  sense,  to  have  organized  the  church,  deciding  who  should  be  and 
who  should  not  be  recognized  as  members,  and  performing  all  the  func¬ 
tions  properly  belonging  to  the  character  and  office  of  a  founder.  If 
this  clause  stood  alone,  there  would  perhaps  be  no  dispute,  except  with 
respect  to  the  extent  of  the  grant  here  made,  or  the  persons  who  re¬ 
ceived  it.  But  a  difficulty  springs  from  the  addition  of  the  next  clause, 
where  the  figure  is  distinct,  and  yet  so  much  alike  as  to  make  it  doubt¬ 
ful  whether  it  denotes  the  same  thing  or  another.  The  former  is  main¬ 
tained  by  some  upon  the  ground  that  doors  were  anciently  tied,  fast 
and  opened  by  untying  or  loosing.  But  even  if  the  usage  be  admitted, 
the  allusion  to  it  here  would  seem  to  be  precluded  by  the  express  men¬ 
tion  of  the  key,  which  could  scarcely  be  employed  for  the  loosing  of  a 
knot.  Another  explanation  seeks  to  gain  the  same  sense  by  supposing 
bind  to  mean  attach  or  fasten,  and  loose  to  separate,  equivalent  expres¬ 
sions  for  admission  and  exclusion.  A  third  gives  the  words  the  more 

19- 


442 


MATTHEW  16,19.20.21. 


specific  sense  of  remitting  or  not  remitting  (compare  J ohn  20,  23) ;  a 
fourth,  that  of  allowing  and  forbidding ;  while  a  fifth  attempts  to  show 
by  citations  from  the  classics  and  Josephus,  that  to  bind  and  loose  was  an 
idiomatic  or  proverbial  expression  for  control  or  government  in  general. 
Diodorus  Siculus  gives  an  inscription  on  an  image  of  Isis,  in  which  she 
claims  to  be  the  queen  of  the  whole  country,  adding,  “  What  I  shall 
bind,  no  one  can  loose,”  Josephus  describes  the  Pharisees  under 
Queen  Alexandra,  as  managers  of  all  affairs,  who  banished  and  restored 
whom  they  would,  and  adds,  Xveip  re  Ka\  delu.  Even  granting  this  to 
be  the  true  sense  of  the  figures,  it  is  no  proof  of  supremacy  or  even 
primacy,  as  here  bestowed  on  Peter,  since,  as  we  have  seen  already,  he 
is  here  addressed  as  representing  the  apostles,  who  are  recognized  by 
Protestants  no  less  than  Papists,  as  not  only  founders  but  chief  rulers 
of  the  church  ;  in  which  capacity,  however,  we  deny  that  they  can  have 
successors. 

20.  Then  charged  he  his  disciples  that  they  should 
tell  no  man  that  he  was  Jesus  the  Christ. 

This  prohibition  is  to  be  explained  upon  the  same  general  principle 
with  those  addressed  to  evil  spirits  and  to  persons  whom  he  healed 
(see  above,  on  8, 4.  9,  30),  not  as  an  absolute  suppression  of  the  truth, 
but  such  a  gradual  disclosure  as  might  best  secure  the  great  ends  of  his 
advent,  and  especially  postpone  its  final  issue  or  catastrophe  till  all  inter¬ 
mediate  ends  had  been  accomplished.  The  very  verb  translated  charged 
(here  and  in  Mark  5,  43.  7,  36.  8, 15.  9,  9)  by  its  etymology  suggests 
the  idea  of  distinction  or  discrimination,  and  may  serve  to  remind  us 
that  this  practice  rested  upon  no  fixed  law  or  general  rule,  but  on  the 
wisdom  and  authority  of  Christ  himself.  That  they  should  tell  no 
man  (of  him,  Mark  8,  30),  what  they  knew  of  him,  particularly  this 
which  they  had  just  confessed,  to  wit,  that  he  was  the  Messiah. 

21.  From  that  time  forth  began  Jesus  to  shew  unto 
his  disciples,  how  that  he  must  go  unto  Jerusalem,  and 
suffer  many  things  of  the  elders  and  chief  priests  and 
scribes,  and  he  killed,  and  be  raised  again  the  third  day. 

Having  now  drawn  from  them  a  profession  of  their  faith  in  his 
IMessiahship,  he  enters  on  the  delicate  and  painful  task  of  teaching 
them  that  although  he  was  the  Messiah,  and  by  necessary  consequence 
a  king,  the  manifestation  of  his  royalty  must  be  preceded  not  only  by 
prophetic  but  by  priestly  functions,  or  in  other  words  that  he  must 
sulfer  before  he  reigned  (see  Luke  24,  26).  This  doctrine,  though  dis¬ 
tinctly  taught  by  Daniel  (9,  26)  and  Isaiah  (53, 4-10),  had  been  grad¬ 
ually  lost  among  the  Jews,  and  was  now  confined  to  that  small  class 
who  still  looked  for  redemption  in  Jerusalem  (Luke  2,  38).  The  teach¬ 
ing  even  of  the  Scribes  presented  the  Messiah  as  a  conqueror  and  an 
earthly  monarch,  who  was  to  restore  the  throne  of  David  and  Solomon 


443 


MATTHEW  16,21.22.23. 

and  the  long  lost  privileges  of  the  chosen  people.  This  delusion  seems 
to  have  been  shared  by  the  apostles,  so  far  as  they  had  any  views 
upon  the  subject,  and  of  this  he  now,  from  this  time,  began  (and  after¬ 
wards  continued)  to  disabuse  them,  by  foretelling  his  various  suffer¬ 
ings,  his  rejection  not  by  individuals  but  by  the  nation,  represented  in 
the  Sanhedrim  by  the  three  great  classes  here  distinctly  named,  and 
lastly,  his  resuscitation  on  the  third  day  after  his  decease. 

22.  Then  Peter  took  him,  and  began  to  rebuke  him, 
saying.  Be  it  far  from  thee,  Lord  :  this  shall  not  he  unto 
thee. 

The  effect  upon  Peter,  though  denounced  by  some  as  improbable 
and  inconsistent  with  his  previous  confession,  is  one  of  the  most  natural 
and  lifelike  incidents  recorded  in  the  Scriptures.  Affectionate  and  ar¬ 
dent,  but  capricious  and  preeipitate,  imperfectly  instructed  even  in  the 
great  truth  which  he  had  avowed  in  behalf  of  his  brethren  and  himself, 
and  no  doubt  elated  above  measure  by  the  praise  or  rather  blessing 
which  the  Lord  had  just  bestowed  upon  him,  although  only  in  his  rep¬ 
resentative  capacity,  he  could  not  have  betrayed  his  own  infirmity  in 
one  act  more  completely  than  in  that  recorded  here  by  Matthew  and 
Mark  (8,  32).  Talcing  him  to  (himself  or  aside)  as  if  to  speak  with  him  in 
private,  not  by  the  hand,  which  would  be  otherwise  expressed.  With 
our  habitual  associations,  it  may  not  be  easy  to  see  any  thing  in  this 
procedure  but  absurd  and  arrogant  presumption,  which  has  led  some 
to  reject  it  as  incredible.  But  when  we  take  into  consideration  all  the 
circumstances  just  suggested,  and  transport  ourselves  into  the  midst  of 
them,  as  Peter  was  surrounded  by  them,  we  may  see  that  the  ex¬ 
traordinary  scene  presented  in  this  passage,  although  one  which  no 
fictitious  writer  would  have  dreamed  of,  and  which  could  not  be  the 
fruit  of  any  mythical  process,  is  nevertheless  exquisitely  true  to  nature, 
both  to  that  of  man  in  general  and  to  that  of  Peter  in  particular.  Be¬ 
gan  to  rebuke  (or  chide  him),  as  a  friend  entitled  to  such  freedom,  for 
indulging  such  unnecessary  fears  and  gloomy  apprehensions.  He  be¬ 
gan  to  do  this  in  the  words  preserved  by  Matthew,  but  was  cut 
short  by  one  of  the  severest  answers  ever  uttered,  which  effectually 
taught  him  his  mistake  and  brought  him  to  his  senses.  Be  it  far  from 
thee  (Vulg.  absit  a  te),  literally,  propitious  to  thee,  which  may  either 
mean,  God  have  mercy  on  thee,  or  spare  thyself  (Tyndale  aifd  Cran- 
mov,  favour  thyseJf). 

23.  But  he  turned,  and  said  unto  Peter,  Get  thee  be¬ 
hind  me,  Satan  :  thou  art  an  offence  unto  me  :  for  thou 
savourest  not  the  things  that  be  of  God,  but  those  that 
be  of  men. 

But  he  (the  Son  of  Man,  thus  corrected  and  patronized  by  one  of 
his  own  followers)  turning  (to  him,  or  upon  him),  said  to  Peter :  Get 


444 


MATTHEW  16,23.24. 

i 

thee  (literally  go,  begone)  behind  me  (out  of  my  sight,  away  from  me) 
Satan.  These  words  are  not  only  the  same  in  both  accounts  of  this 
transaction,  but  identical  with  those  pronounced  by  Christ  to  Satan 
in  the  wilderness,  according  to  the  common  text  of  Luke  (4,  8),  and 
according  to  the  latest  text  of  Matthew  (4, 10).  This  coincidence  affords 
a  key  to  the  true  meaning  of  this  sharp  apostrophe,  as  not  a  mere  ex¬ 
pression  of  abhorrence  or  contempt,  but  a  specilic  charge  of  imitating 
Satan  as  the  tempter,  and  endeavouring  to  draw  his  master  back  from 
the  very  thing  for  which  he  came  into  the  world,  and  for  which  his 
three  years’  ministry  was  but  a  preparation.  As  if  he  had  said,  ^  What, 
is  Satan  come  again  to  tempt  me,  as  he  did  of  old  ?  Avaunt  thou  ad¬ 
versary,  get  thee  hence  !  ’  Then  addressing  the  astonished  and  no 
doubt  affrighted  Peter,  in  his  own  person,  he  describes  the  cause  of 
the  mistake  which  he  had  just  made.  Thou  art  an  offence^  i.  e.  a 
stumbling  block,  a  hindrance,  to  me.  (See  above,  on  13,41).  Sawur- 
est.^  an  obscure  English  word,  and  expressing  an  idea  not  contained  in 
the  original,  which  means  thou  mindest.,  carest  for,  including  both  the 
thoughts  and  the  affections.  (Compare  Rom.  8,  5.  1  Cor.  4,  6.  Gal.  5, 10. 
Phil.  3, 19.  Col.  3,  2.)  The  things  that  he  of  God^  &c.,  in  the  origi¬ 
nal  is  simply,  the  (^things)  of  God^  the  (things)  of  men^  i.  e.  their  re¬ 
spective  interests,  affairs,  or  claims.  The  meaning  of  the  sentence 
seems  to  be,  ‘you  look  only  at  the  human  side  of  these  transactions, 
and  regard  my  death  as  a  mere  instance  of  mortality  like  that  of  other 
men,  to  be  averted  as  a  great  calamity,  whereas  it  is  the  means  which 
God  has  chosen  and  appointed  for  the  satisfaction  of  his  broken  law  and 
the  salvation  of  his  elect  people.’ 

24.  Then  said  Jesus  unto  his  disciples,  If  any  (man) 
■will  come  after  me,  let  him  deny  himself,  and  take  up 
his  cross,  and  follow  me. 

The  connection  with  what  goes  before  is,  that  although  the  disci¬ 
ples  were  surprised  to  hear  that  he  must  suffer,  they  must  now  prepare 
to  suffer  too,  the  members  with  the  head.  If  any  one  (whosoever,  with¬ 
out  any  exception  or  reserve)  will  (i.  e.  wishes  or  desires  to)  come  after 
(i.  e.  follow)  me  (as  my  dependent  and  adherent),  not  in  public  sta¬ 
tion  merely,  but  among  the  humblest  classes  of  my  people.  Let  him 
deny  (i.  e.  renounce,  abjure)  himself  (as  the  great  object  of  regard),  and 
let  him  taTce  iij)  his  cross,  not  merely  a  prospective  or  prophetic  allusion 
to  the  mode  of  his  own  death,  but  a  reference  to  the  common  practice 
of  compelling  malefactors  to  convey  their  own  cross  to  the  place  of  exe¬ 
cution.  Crucifixion  being  commonly  regarded  as  at  once  the  most 
painful  and  disgraceful  way  of  dying,  is  here  put  for  the  worst  form 
of  suffering,  and  carrying  the  cross  for  humble,  patient  submission  to 
it.  And  let  him  follow  me,  not  merely  in  the  general  sense  of  service 
or  the  special  sense  of  imitation,  but  in  that  of  suffering  with  and  like 
another.  As  if  he  had  said,  ‘  let  him  follow  me  to  Golgotha.’ 


445 


MATTHEW  16,  25.  26.  27. 

25.  For  whosoever  will  save  his  life  shall  lose  it :  and 
whosoever  will  lose  his  life  for  my  sake  shall  find  it. 

This  is  one  of  our  Lord’s  aphorisms,  uttered  upon  more  than  one 
occasion,  and  already  introduced  by  Matthew  in  a  difierent  connection 
and  more  briefly.  (See  above,  on  10,  39.) 

26.  For  what  is  a  man  profited,  if  he  shall  gain  the 
whole  world,  and  lose  his  own  soul  ?  or  what  shall  a  man 
give  in  exchange  for  his  soul  ? 

The  loss  in  the  case  supposed  is  therefore  no  loss,  as  the  gain  in  the 
other  case  is  no  gain.  The  terms  are  chosen  from  the  dialect  of  ordi¬ 
nary  secular  business.  WMt  is  a  man  profited^  what  will  he  gain,  on 
ordinary  principles  of  value  or  exchange,  if  he  gain^  acquire,  in  the 
usual  commercial  sense,  the  whole  world,  that  is,  all  that  it  can  ofier 
as  an  object  of  attraction  or  desire,  the  aggregate,  sum  total,  of  enjoy¬ 
ment,  whether  sensual,  ambitious,  intellectual,  pecuniary,  and  lose  (a 
most  emphatic  passive  form,  be  made  to  lose,  be  injured,  ruined,  with 
respect  to)  his  oien  soif  the  word  before  translated  life,  but  here  de¬ 
noting  rather  that  which  lives,  enjoys  and  suffers.  What  are  enjoy¬ 
ments  if  there  is  no  one  to  enjoy  them,  if  the  man  himself  is  lost,  i.  e. 
lost  to  happiness  for  ever  ?  He  pursues  the  awful  supposition  further, 
to  the  verge  of  paradox  and  contradiction,  but  with  terrible  advantage 
to  the  force  of  this  transcendent  argument.  Suppose  a  man  to  lose  his 
soul,  his  life,  himself,  in  the  sense  before  explained,  how  shall  he  re¬ 
cover  it,  redeem  it,  buy  it  back  again,  by  giving  an  equivalent  in  value '? 
There  is  something  unspeakably  impressive  in  this  method  of  suggest¬ 
ing  the  importance  of  eternal  interests,  by  supposing  the  very  life  or 
soul  itself  to  be  lost  to  the  possessor  and  an  etfort  made  to  buy  it  back, 
and  then  propounding  the  question,  where  is  the  equivalent,  or  how  shall 
it  be  rendered  ?  It  is  true  that  when  the  soul,  or  its  eternal  life,  is  lost, 
there  is  no  one  to  attempt  its  restoration,  for  the  subject  or  possessor 
is  lost  with  it.  But  this  is  only  stating  in  another  form  the  very  truth 
which  Christ  is  here  propounding,  that  a  man  may  lose  his  present 
life  and  yet  live  on  and  have  a  better  life  in  lieu  of  it ;  but  when  he 
loses  his  eternal  life,  he  is  himself  lost,  lost  forever,  and  the  thought  of 
compensation  or  recovery  involves  a  contradiction. 

27.  For  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his 
Father  with  his  angels  ;  and  then  he  shall  reward  every 
man  according  to  his  works. 

The  threatening  against  such  as  should  be  ashamed  of  Christ,  re¬ 
corded  here  by  Mark  (8,  38)  and  Luke  (9, 26),  having  been  substan¬ 
tially  given  by  Matthew  in  a  different  connection  (see  above,  on  10, 
33),  is  here  omitted,  while  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  as  they  report  it 
{when  he  shall  come^  &c.)  is  amplified  into  a  solemn  prophecy  that  the 


446 


MATTHEW  16,27.28. 


Son  of  Man  (who  now  appears  in  the  form  of  a  servant)  will  come  in 
glory  (with  a  majesty  the  opposite  of  what  you  now  behold,  and  that 
not  his  own  glory  merely  but)  the  glory  of  his  Father^  with  (attended 
by)  the  angels,  whose  reflected  brightness  will  enhance  that  from 
which  it  is  derived  (Luke  9,  26).  He  will  then  come,  no  longer  as  a 
sufferer  but  a  judge,  empowered  and  prepared  to  deal  with  every  man 
according  to  his  icorks,  literally,  'practice  (Trpa^Lv),  meaning  his  whole 
course  of  conduct. 

28.  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  There  be  some  standing 
here,  which  shall  not  taste  of  death,  till  they  see  the  Son 
of  man  coming  in  his  kingdom. 

This  verse  is  one  of  the  most  difScult  and  disputed  in  the  whole 
book,  though  the  question  is  rather  one  of  application  than  essential 
meaning.  Amen,  verily,  assuredly  (see  above,  on  5, 18.  13, 17).  I  say 
unto  you,  with  emphasis  on  both  the  pronouns,  I  (the  Son  of  Man)  to 
you  (my  confidential  followers).  There  l)e,  not  a  subjunctive  but  an 
old  indicative  form  equivalent  precisely  to  the  modern  are.  Some  of 
those  here  standing,  i.  e.  of  the  twelve  then  present  and  immediately 
addressed,  or  of  the  crowd  referred  to  in  Mark  8,  34.  Which,  applied  in 
old  English  both  to  things  and  persons,  but  confined  to  the  former  in 
modern  usage,  which  would  here  require  loho.  Shall  not,  a  peculiarly 
strong  negative  in  Greek,  the  aorist  subjunctive  with  the  particle  {gri) 
suggesting  the  idea,  that  they  neither  could,  would,  nor  should  do  what 
the  verb  expresses.  Taste  of  death,  i.  e.  experience  or  partake  of  it, 
considered  as  a  portion  or  a  draught  administered  by  God  to  man  (see 
below,  on  20,  22.  26,  39).  Though  the  form  of  expression  here  is  highly 
metaphorical,  it  can  be  referred  to  nothing  but  the  literal  decease  of 
persons  actually  present.  This  restricts  the  meaning  of  wdiat  follows 
to  a  single  generation  or  a  single  life-time,  though  it  may  have  been  a 
long  one.  Till  they  have  seen  (or  see,  behold,  or  witness)  the  Son  of  Man 
(now  disguised  in  the  form  of  a  servant)  coming  in  his  kingdom,  i.  e. 
as  a  king  in  all  his  royal  state  and  majesty.  The  essential  meaning, 
as  to  which  there  can  be  no  dispute,  is  that  before  all  then  present 
should  be  dead,  there  would  be  some  convincing  proof  that  the  Mes¬ 
siah’s  kingdom  had  been  actually  set  up,  as  predicted  by  the  prophets 
and  by  Christ  himself.  The  only  doubt  or  difference  of  opinion  is  in 
reference  to  the  nature  of  this  evidence,  or  the  particular  event  by 
which  it  was  to  be  afforded.  The  solutions  of  this  question  which  have 
been  proposed  are  objectionable,  chiefly  because  too  exclusive  and  re¬ 
strictive  of  the  promise  to  a  single  point  of  time,  whereas  it  really  has 
reference  to  a  grad«al  or  progressive  change,  the  institution  of  Christ’s 
kingdom  in  the  hearts  of  men  and  in-  society  at  large,  of  which  pro¬ 
tracted  process  the  two  salient  points  are  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  more  than  a 
quarter  of  a  century  later,  between  which  points,  as  those  of  its  incep¬ 
tion  and  its  consummation,  lies  the  lingering  death  of  the  Mosaic  dis¬ 
pensation,  and  the  gradual  erection  of  Messiah’s  kingdom. 


MATTHEW  17,18. 


447 


CHAPTEK  XYII. 

The  solemn  confession  and  prediction  in  the  preceding  chapter  seemed 
to  intimate  the  close  of  our  Lord’s  ministry  in  Galilee,  the  formal  wind¬ 
ing  up  of  which  is  now  recorded.  This  juncture  in  the  history  was 
marked,  moreover,  by  a  momentary  anticipation  of  his  glory,  which 
three  of  the  apostles  were  allowed  to  witness,  after  which  the  record  of 
the  Galilean  ministry  hastens  to  its  close.  The  main  subject  of  this 
chapter  is  the  Transfiguration,  with  the  accompanying  incidents  (1-21). 
The  remaining  verses,  which  describe  our  Lord’s  last  circuit  in  Galilee 
and  visit  to  Capernaum  (22-27)  are  closely  connected  with  the  follow¬ 
ing  chapter. 

The  Transfiguration  (1-8).  The  time,  place,  and  earthly  witnesses 
(1) — the  actual  transfiguration  (2) — the  heavenly  witnesses  (3) — Pe¬ 
ter’s  proposition  (4) — the  divine  recognition  (5) — the  effect  on  the  dis¬ 
ciples  (6) — their  restoration  (7) — the  end  of  the  vision  (8). 

The  Descent  (9-13).  The  prohibition  (9) — the  doctrine  of  the 
Scribes  as  to  Elijah  (10) — our  Lord’s  confirmation  of  it  (11) — the 
fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  (12) — its  application  to  John  the  Baptist 
(13). 

The  Epileptic  Demoniac  (14-21).  The  return  (14) — the  descrip¬ 
tion  of  the  case  (15) — the  failure  of  the  nine  (16) — our  Lord’s  expos¬ 
tulation  (17) — the  dispossession  (18) — the  inquiry  of  the  nine  (19) — 
the  faith  of  miracles  (20) — its  spiritual  aids  (21). 

The  close  of  the  Galilean  ministry  (22-27).  The  last  circuit  (22) — 
renewed  prediction  of  his  passion  (23) — the  last  return  to  Capernaum 
(24) — Peter’s  conversation  with  the  tax-gatherers  (24) — our  Lord’s  ex¬ 
emption  from  such  charges  (25.  26) — he  waives  his  prerogative,  and 
provides  the  sum  required  by  miracle  (27). 


- - 

CHAPTEE  XVIII. 


This  chapter  is  entirely  occupied  with  our  Lord’s  discourses,  or  rather 
a  single  conversation  (see  below)  to  his  disciples  during  his  last  circuit 
in  Galilee,  or  perhaps  during  his  last  visit  to  Capernaum  recorded  at 
the  close  of  Chapter  XVII.  These  discourses  relate  chiefly  to  two 
topics  ;  the  nature  of  true  greatness,  or  the  dignity  of  Christ’s  little 
ones  (1-14)  ;  and  the  nature  of  Christian  discipline,  or  the  divine  law 
of  censures  and  forgiveness  (15-35).  The  first  of  these  subjects  was 


448 


MATTHEW  18,19. 


introduced  by  a  question  of  the  disciples,  as  to  their  relative  rank  in 
the  Messiah’s  kingdom  (1),  which  question  was  itself  not  improbably 
occasioned  by  our  Lord’s  prediction  of  his  passion  in  17,  22.  23,  though 
separated  from  it  in  the  narrative  by  the  account  of  an  intervening  in¬ 
cident  (17,  24-27).  To  the  question  Christ  gives  first  a  symbolical 
answer  (2),  which  he  then  explains  in  words,  both  negatively  (3)  and 
positively  (4).  The  evil  effects  of  such  humility  would  be  prevented 
by  their  bearing  Christ’s  commission  (5),  which  would  make  offences 
even  against  a  child  tremendous  crimes  (6.  7),  which  must  therefore 
be  avoided  at  any  cost  (8,  9).  Another  reason  for  respecting  even  the 
most  childlike  and  defenceless  of  believers  is  the  fact  that  they  enjoy 
angelic  guardianship  (10),  and  are  objects  of  Christ’s  saving  mercy  (11), 
valued  not  according  to  intrinsic  worth,  but  as  men  value  that  which 
has  been  lost  and  is  found  (12-14).  As  there  will  be  mutual  collisions, 
however,  even  among  true  believers,  our  Lord  shows  how  they  should 
be  dealt  with ;  first,  in  the  most  private  manner  (15)  ;  then,  if  need 
be,  in  the  presence  of  a  few  (16)  ;  and  lastly,  in  the  presence  of  the 
church  (17),  to  which  in  the  person  of  the  twelve,  he  grants  the  ne¬ 
cessary  power  of  reception  and  exclusion  (18),  and  of  effectual  united 
prayer  (19,  20).  All  this  has  reference  to  the  case  of  contumacious, 
obstinate  offenders ;  but  in  answer  to  a  question  from  Peter  (21),  our 
Lord  teaches  that  the  penitent  offender  is  to  be  forgiven  without  limit. 
This  he  first  expresses  in  a  hyperbolical  but  not  exaggerated  answer 
to  the  question  (22),  and  then  enforces  the  necessity  of  such  a  temper 
in  the  parable  of  the  two  debtors  (23-34),  winding  up  with  a  solemn 
application  to  his  hearers  (35).  There  is  not  the  slightest  ground  for 
doubting  that  this  interesting  conversation  stands  precisely  in  its 
proper  place,  i.  e.  its  true  chronological  position,  at  the  close  of  our 
Lord’s  residence  and  ministry  in  Galilee. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

As  the  two  preceding  chapters  (XVII.,  XVIII.)  record  the  close  of 
our  Lord’s  Galilean  ministry,  so  the  next  two  (XIX.,  XX.)  contain  the 
record  of  his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem.  In  the  one  before  us,  we  see 
him  actually  crossing  the  Jordan  into  Perea  (1)  followed  by  a  multi¬ 
tude  in  quest  of  healing  (2),  as  well  as  by  adversaries,  who  propound  a 
difficult  question  in  relation  to  divorce  (3),  which  he  answers  by  re¬ 
ferring  them  to  the  creation  of  man  (4),  and  the  original  institution  of 
marriage  (5),  implying  an  indissoluble  relation  (6).  In  reply  to  a  fur¬ 
ther  question,  as  to  the  Mosaic  law  of  repudiation  (7),  he  represents  it 
as  a  later  regulation,  rendered  necessary  by  their  own  injustice  and  se¬ 
verity  (8),  and  not  at  all  justifying  the  prevailing  licence  of  repudia- 


449 


MATTHEW  19,20. 

tion  (9).  In  reply  to  a  misgiving  of  the  disciples  as  to  marriage  (10), 
he  teaches  them  that  there  is  no  rule  applicable  to  all  cases  (11),  and 
enumerates  several  instances  of  lawful  celibacy,  closing  with  a  repeti¬ 
tion  of  his  warning  against  indiscriminate  judgments  in  such  cases  (12). 
The  repulse  of  little  children  by  his  followers  (13)  leads  to  a  gracious 
invitation  on  his  own  part  (14),  with  obvious  reference  to  his  previous 
teachings  (18,  2-4).  Proceeding  on  his  journey  towards  Jerusalem 
(15),  he  applies  a  searching  test  to  a  self-righteous  seeker  of  eternal  life 
(lG-22),  and  takes  occasion  from  it  to  declare  the  difficulties  thrown  by 
wealth  in  the  way  of  men’s  salvation,  which  is  stated  both  in  literal 
and  proverbial  terms  (23.  24) ;  but  immediately  relieves  the  anxiety 
of  his  disciples  (25),  by  referring  all  to  the  omnipotence  of  God  (26). 
In  reply  to  Peter’s  question  as  to  those  who,  like  the  twelve,  had  stood 
the  test  of  forsaking  all  for  Christ  (27),  he  utters  a  twofold  promise, 
one  specific  and  addressed  directly  to  the  twelve  (28),  the  other  general 
to  all  believers  (29),  closing  with  a  proverbial  intimation  that  there 
would  be  strange  inequalities  in  its  fulfilment  (30).  The  obvious  nexus 
between  these  discourses  is  a  chronological  one,  that  is  to  say,  they  are 
put  together  here  because  they  were  actually  uttered  in  this  ordei’  on 
the  journey  to  Jerusalem. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

Tms  chapter  continues  and  completes  the  last  journey  to  Jerusalem. 
Its  connection  with  the  one  before  it  is  as  intimate  as  possible.  The 
proverbial  maxim  with  which  that  concludes  is  here  amplified  into  a 
parable,  that  of  the  labourers  in  the  vineyard,  at  the  close  of  which  the 
aphorism  is  repeated  (1-16).  We  then  find  him  still  on  his  way  to  Je¬ 
rusalem  with  the  multitude  (17),  and  privately  repeating  to  the  tw^elve 
the  premonition  of  his  approaching  passion  (18.  19).  This  appears  to 
have  occasioned  the  ambitious  application  of  the  wife  and  sons  of  Zeb- 
edee,  and  Christ’s  mysterious  answer  and  prediction  with  respect  to 
the  latter  (20-23).  The  jealous  emulation  of  the  other  ten  apostles 
gives  occasion  to  a  statement  of  the  difference  between  Messiah’s  king¬ 
dom  and  all  others,  as  well  as  of  the  only  means  by  wdiich  distinction 
in  the  former  can  be  possibly  attained  (24-28).  He  has  now  reached 
the  last  stage  on  the  journey  to  Jerusalem,  and  there  performs  a  signal 
miracle  of  healing,  the  subjects  of  which  join  his  retinue  and  accom¬ 
pany  him  towards  the  Holy  City  (29-34). 


450 


MATTHEW  21,22. 


CHAPTEK  XXL 

The  next  five  chapters  (XXI.-XXV.)  record  the  winding  up  of  our  Lord’s 
whole  prophetic  ministry  on  earth,  first  in  public  (XXI.-XXIII.)  and 
then  within  the  circle  of  his  own  disciples  (XXIV.,  XXV.).  In  the 
one  before  us  we  find  him  at  the  end  of  liis  long  journey,  in  the  neigh¬ 
bourhood  of  Jerusalem  (1),  sending  two  of  his  disciples  for  an  ass,  in 
order  to  make  his  entrance  in  accordance  with  the  well  known  prophecy 
of  Zechariah  (2-7).  This  first  public  claim  to  Messianic  honours  is 
acknowledged  with  enthusiasm  by  the  crowd  of  worshippers  going  up 
to  the  passover  (8-9).  His  arrival  causes  general  commotion  and  in¬ 
quiry  as  to  his  pretensions  (10-11).  He  again  exercises  Messianic  au¬ 
thority  by  clearing  the  temple  of  profane  intruders,  and  by  working 
miracles  within  its  precincts  (12-14).  In  replj^  to  the  remonstrances 
of  the  priests  and  scribes  against  these  supposed  disorders,  he  refers 
particularly  to  the  acclamations  of  the  children  as  a  fulfilment  of  the 
Scriptures  (15.  16).  At  night  he  withdraws  to  Bethany,  and  on  his 
return  early  in  the  morning,  blasts  a  fig-tree  as  a  symbol  of  the  judg¬ 
ment  impending  over  the  fruitless  and  unprofitable  race  of  Israel  (17- 
20).  This  leads  to  another  brief  discourse,  in  reference  to  the  faith  of 
miracles  (20-22).  At  the  temple  he  is  met  by  a  formal  deputation 
from  the  Sanhedrim,  demanding  the  authority  by  which  he  had  so 
suddenly  assumed  prophetic  if  not  Messianic  powers  (23).  He  replies 
by  referring  to  the  public  testimony  of  his  forerunner,  whose  divine  le¬ 
gation  they  did  not  dare  to  call  in  question  (24-27).  He  then  shadows 
forth  the  coming  changes  in  the  parable  of  the  Two  Sons  (28-32),  and 
the  fearful  doom  of  the  unfaithful  Jews  in  that  of  the  Husbandmen 
(33-41).  He  also  applies  to  them  and  to  himself  the  parabolic  lan¬ 
guage  of  the  eighteenth  psalm  (42-44).  These  open  and  severe  denun¬ 
ciations  of  the  theocratic  rulers  would  have  led  to  his  immediate  seiz¬ 
ure,  but  for  the  popular  belief  in  his  prophetic  mission  (45-46). 


CHAPTEK  XXII. 

Our  Lord’s  great  discourse  to  the  heads  of  the  theocracy  as  such  (21, 
23)  is  here  completed  by  the  parable  of  the  marriage-feast  (1-10)  and 
wedding-garment  (11-13),  closing  with  one  of  his  significant  and  solemn 
aphorisms  (14).  Here  the  chapter  might  have  ended ;  for  here  begins 
a  new  series  of  attacks,  not  from  the  government  or  its  members,  in 
their  ofiicial  capacity,  but  from  several  leading  classes  of  thO  people. 
The  first  attack  proceeded  from  a  coalition  of  the  Pharisees  and 
Herodians,  intended  to  reduce  him  to  a  dilemma,  in  relation  to  the  deli- 


MATTHEW  22,23. 


451 


cate  political  question  upon  which  they  were  divided,  the  lawfulness 
of  Jews  submitting  to  a  foreign  and  a  heathen  power,  which  our  Lord 
answered  with  a  wisdom  so  consummate  as  to  command  the  admira¬ 
tion  of  his  very  tempters  (15-22).  The  next  attack  was  from  the  scep¬ 
tical  and  latitudinarian  Sadducees,  and  was  not  so  much  insidious  as 
frivolous,  designed  to  throw  contempt  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  resur¬ 
rection  (23-28).  To  their  scoffing  question  Christ  replies  with  godlike 
dignity,  correcting  their  false  notion  of  a  future  state,  and  authorita¬ 
tively  laying  down  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  which  they  denied 
and  laughed  at  (29-32).  As  this  reply  not  only  silenced  his  assailants, 
but  produced  a  great  impression  on  the  people  (33,  34),  the  Pharisees 
renewed  their  attack,  not  now  as  a  political  but  as  a  religious  party, 
putting  forward  one  of  their  scribes  or  lawyers,  with  a  question  proba¬ 
bly  discussed  in  their  schools,  as  to  the  relative  importance  of  the  pre¬ 
cepts  in  the  decalogue  (35,  36).  Neither  evading  it  nor  answering  it 
formally,  our  Lord  escapes  their  snare,  and  at  the  same  time  teaches 
them  the  true  extent  and  import  of  the  law,  by  citing  the  two  precepts 
which  contain  its  sum  and  substance  (37-40).  The  last  interro¬ 
gation  is  from  Christ  himself,  and  marks  the  change  in  his  position 
from  defensive  to  offensive,  charging  home  upon  them  their  departure 
from  the  ancient  Messianic  doctrine,  and  opening  the  way  for  the  ter¬ 
rible  invective  and  denunciation  which  immediately  follow  (41-46). 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

Cue  Lord  now  turns  from  his  assailants  to  the  body  of  the  people  and 
to  his  own  disciples,  both  in  the  narrower  and  wider  sense  (1).  For 
their  guidance  he  defines  the  official  position  of  the  Scribes  and  Phari¬ 
sees,  and  their  claim  to  obedience,  but  warns  against  copying  their  ex¬ 
ample  (2-4).  This  he  enforces  by  disclosing  their  true  character  and 
motives,  the  desire  of  human  praise,  as  shown  in  several  particulars, 
against  which  he  forewarns  his  followers  (5-12).  He  then  turns,  for 
the  last  time,  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  themselves,  against  whom 
he  utters  the  most  terrible  invective  and  denunciation  upon  record, 
summing  up,  at^the  close  of  his  prophetic  ministry,  all  that  he  had  said 
against  them  during  its  previous  course  (13).  The  first  ground  of  de¬ 
nunciation  is  their  frustrating  the  very  end  of  the  theocracy  committed 
to  their  charge  (13),  The  second  is  their  double  profanation  of  re¬ 
ligious  worship  as  a  cloak  for  their  cupidity  (14).  The  third  is  their 
proselyting  zeal,  not  for  good  but  for  evil,  and  tending  not  to  the  salva¬ 
tion  but  the  ruin  and  the  ruinous  influence  of  their  converts  (15),  The 
fourth  is  their  misguiding  of  the  people,  as  to  religious  duties,  with  par¬ 
ticular  reference  to  oaths,  either  as  a  mere  example,  or  as  a  specially 
prevailing  evil  (16-22).  The  fifth  is  their  sacrificing  the  essentials  of 


452 


MATTHEW  23,24. 

the  law  to  its  minutest  ceremonial  observances,  and  even  to  traditional 
and  uncommanded  usages,  here  expressed  both  directly  and  in  strong 
proverbial  language  (23-24).  The  next  two  verses  relate  to  the  same 
thing,  their  merely  outside  righteousness,  set  forth  under  two  striking 
and  familiar  images.  The  first  is  that  of  a  dish  clean  upon  the  out¬ 
side  but  dirty  still  within  (25-2G).  The  other  is  that  of  tombs  or 
burial-houses,  whitened  on  the  outside,  but  wnthin  full  of  decayed 
or  putrifying  corpses  (27-28).  This  comparison  suggests  the  eighth  and 
last  denunciation,  which  was  the  more  startling  because  founded  upon 
what  they  no  doubt  looked  upon  as  highly  meritorious,  their  zeal  in 
building  monuments  or  tombs  to  the  martyred  prophets,  and  disclaim¬ 
ing  all  participation  in  the  murderous  fanaticism  of  their  fathers.  In 
opposition  to  this  specious  profession,  our  Lord  represents  them  as 
the  genuine  descendants  of  the  prophet-killers,  and  declares  that  they 
would  yet  commit  the  same  sin  upon  those  whom  he  should  send  unto 
them,  and  thus  prove  -worthy  to  bear  the  burden  of  the  whole  race, 
not  only  as  the  last  but  as  tlie  worst  generation  (29-36).  He  then 
closes  with  a  tender  lamentation  over  the  doomed  race  as  represented 
by  the  Holy  City,  predicts  its  speedy  desolation,  and  adds  an  enigmat¬ 
ical  intimation  of  ulterior  changes  (37-39). 


♦-0  » 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

Though  our  Lord  had  solemnly  concluded  his  public  work  as  a  teach¬ 
er,  and  taken  an  affecting  leave  of  Israel  as  a  people  (23,  37-39),  his 
prophetic  ministry  was  yet  to  be  wound  up,  within  a  smaller  circle, 
and  by  a  prophetical  discourse,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  expression 
(XXIV.,  XXV.).  A  natural  feeling  of  admiration  in  the  twelve  or 
some  of  them  for  the  majestic  structure  of  the  temple  leads  him  to 
predict  its  absolute  destruction,  and  this  to  an  inquiry  as  to  the  time 
and  the  premonitory  signs  of  the  great  catastrophe  of  which  they  had 
so  often  heard  obscurely  (1-3).  Instead  of  gratifying  idle  curiosity  by 
positive  details,  our  Lord  begins  by  showing  what  would  not  be  neces¬ 
sarily  the  signs  of  his  return,  hoAvever  men  might  be  inclined  so  to  re¬ 
gard  them,  and  impostors  so  to  represent  them  (4,  5) ;  such  as  wars 
and  other  national  commotions  and  calamities,  which  instead  of  an¬ 
nouncing  the  end,  might  be  merely  the  beginning  of  sorrows  (6-8). 
Even  when  assailed  themselves,  betrayed,  and  hated,  they  should  still 
be  rescued  if  they  remained  faithful  during  these  sore  trials,  and  the 
Gospel  must  be  preached  to  every  nation  before  the  coming  of  the  final 
consummation  (9-14).  Without  distinguishing  the  different  stages  of 
his  coming  or  the  accompanying  judgments,  he  instructs  his  followers 
what  to  do  when  the  liomans  should  invest  Jerusalem,  viz.,  to  flee 
without  the  least  delay,  the  idea  of  precipitancy  being  variously  and 


453 


MATTHEW  24,25. 

strikingly  expressed  (15-20).  The  reason  given  is  the  unparalleled  se¬ 
verity  of  the  judgments  coming  on  the  Jews,  and  only  to  be  checked 
for  the  sake  of  true  believers  (21—22).  Even  at  this  fatal  juncture 
there  would  not  be  wanting  false  pretenders  to  the  prophetic,  and  even 
to  the  Messianic  office,  whom  he  solemnly  charges  his  disciples  not  to 
listen  to,  either  at  home  or  abroad  (23—26),  assuring  them  that  when 
he  did  come,  it  would  be  as  conspicuously  as  the  lightning,  or  the 
flight  of  eagles  to  their  prey  (27-28),  and  be  followed  by  the  most  ter¬ 
rific  changes  in  the  frame  of  nature,  and  the  final  gathering  of  God’s 
elect  (29-31).  Having  answered  their  question  as  to  the  signs  of  his 
return  in  judgment,  he  now  answers  that  as  to  the  time ;  first,  bj^ 
telling  them  that  these  great  changes  were  not  arbitrary  judgments, 
but  the  growth  of  moral  causes,  and  could  no  more  take  place  until 
these  had  done  their  work,  than  the  fig-tree  would  bear  fruit  be¬ 
fore  the  season  (32-33) ;  2. — that  in  a  certain  sense,  this  whole  pro¬ 
phetic  scheme  should  be  verified,  before  the  end  of  the  contemporary 
generation  (34) ;  3. — that  although  the  event  was  far  more  certain 
than  the  continuance  of  the  frame  of  nature,  the  precise  time  of  its  oc¬ 
currence  was  concealed  alike  from  men  and  angels(35-36),  and  it  would 
therefore  come  as  unexpectedly  at  last  as  the  flood  upon  the  antedilu¬ 
vian  sinners  (37-39),  but  with  a  discrimination  between  individuals 
unknown  in  that  case  (40-41).  Having  thus  disclosed  as  much  as  he 
thought  fit  with  respect  to  his  departure  and  return,  our  Lord  now 
*  teaches  his  disciples  how  they  ought  to  act  during  his  absence,  whether 
long  or  short.  The  first  great  duty  is  that  of  vigilance,  enforced  by  a 
case  of  burglary,  perhaps  of  recent  date  and  well  known  to  his  hearers 
(42-44),  and  then  by  a  supposed  but  most  familiar  case  of  a  servant 
left  to  take  care  of  his  absent  master’s  house  (45-51).  In  carrying  out 
this  illustration,  he  exhibits  in  a  plain  but  vivid  manner,  the  conduct 
of  a  faithful  and  unfaithful  servant  in  such  circumstances,  showing, 
however,  by  the  fearful  severity  of  the  punishment,  that  he  has  his  eye 
not  so  much  upon  the  sign  as  the  thing  signified. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

Having  taught  them  the  necessity  of  vigilance  after  his  departure,  he 
now  shows  them  that  the  vigilance  required  is  not  mere  watchfulness 
but  watchful  preparation.  This  is  beautifully  set  forth  in  the  parable 
of  the  ten  virgins,  winding  up  with  a  solemn  application  to  his  hearers 
(1-13).  His  next  lesson  is  that  their  vigilance  must  not  be  idle  or  un¬ 
fruitful,  but  laborious  and  productive,  in  proportion  to  their  several  ca¬ 
pacities  and  opportunities.  This  is  taught  in  the  parable  of  the  talents 
(14-30).  The  last  lesson  has  respect  to  the  way  in  which  the)^  might 
testify  their  love  to  him  while  personally  absent.  By  acts  of  kindness 
to  his  suffering  people  (31-46).  This  is  enforced  by  a  graphic  scene 


454 


MATTHEW  25,26. 


which,  standing  as  it  does  at  the  close  of  a  series  of  parables,  rising  one 
above  another,  might  itself  he  regarded  as  a  parable,  the  imagery  of 
which  is  borrowed  from  the  future,  like  that  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Laz¬ 
arus.  But  with  a  skill  which  in  an  uninspired  writer  would  be  called 
consummate,  this  passage  also  winds  up  the  prophetic  discourse  in  ch. 
XXIV.,  and  thereby  closes  our  Lord’s  personal  work  on  earth  as  a 
prophet,  even  in  the  confidential  circle  of  his  own  disciples. 


CHAPTEE  XXYI. 

Having  finished  his  teaching  work,  our  Lord  now  looks  forward  to  his 
passion  and  connects  it  with  the  passover  only  two  days  ofij  thus  for 
the  first  time  fixing  the  precise  date  of  that  great  event  which  he  had 
so  often  more  indefinitely  foretold  to  his  disciples  (1,  2).  The  different 
lines  of  hostile  influence  which  had  long  been  converging  towards  his 
destruction  now  begin  to  show  themselves  in  visible  approximation. 
We  find  the  Sanhedi’im  formally  deliberating  how  they  could  despatch 
him  without  popular  commotion,  and  abandoning  the  project  until  after 
the  passover,  for  want  of  some  auxiliary  influence  ab  intra.  How  this 
aid  was  unexpectedly  provided  the  evangelist  informs  us  by  relating 
how  the  disaffection  of  Judas  had  been  brought  to  maturity  and  open 
outbreak  a  few  days  before  at  Bethany  (6-13).  This  brought  about 
the  convergence  which  appeared  to  be  indefinitely  put  off,  and  secured 
the  espionage  of  a  traitor  within  the  narrow  circle  of  our  Lord’s  most 
confidential  followers  (14-16).  He  accompanies  his  Master  and  his 
brethren  to  the  place  appointed  for  the  paschal  feast ;  hears  our  Lord 
declare  that  one  of  them  was  to  betray  him,  and  pronounce  a  fearful 
woe  on  the  betrayer,  hears  the  eleven  severally  ask,  Is  it  I  ?  repeats 
the  same  inquiry  and  receiving  an  affirmative  answer,  silently  with¬ 
draws,  thus  severing  himself  forever  from  the  only  Saviour  (17-25). 
That  Saviour  then  engrafts  upon  the  last  Jewish  Passover  the  first 
Christian  Eucharist,  thus  furnishing  the  link  of  transition  and  connec¬ 
tion  between  the  old  and  new  economy  (26—29).  Withdrawing  to  the 
Mount  of  Olives,  he  predicts  the  defection  of  his  followers,  but  promises 
to  meet  them  in  Galilee  after  his  resurrection  (30-32).  To  Peter’s 
vehement  denial  of  our  Lord’s  words,  so  far  as  they  concerned  himself, 
Christ  repeats  the  prediction  still  more  pointedly  in  reference  to  Peter, 
and  receives  a  still  more  passionate  denial,  in  which  all  the  others  join 
(33-35).  Then  comes  the  awful  scene  of  anguish  in  Gethsemane,  made 
more  so  by  the  insensibility  and  drowsiness  even  of  his  three  chosen 
attendants  (36-46).  He  is  pointed  out  by  Judas  to  the  armed  band 
who  arrest  him  (47—50).  He  rebukes  a  feeble  effort  at  resistance  on 
the  part  of  his  disciples,  and  teaches  them  that  his  submission  is  en¬ 
tirely  voluntary  and  intended  to  fulfil  the  Scriptures  (51-56).  His 
disciples  now  forsake  him  and  are  scattered,  but  Peter  soon  after  fol- 


455 


MATTHEW  26,27. 


lows  at  a  distance  to  the  house  of  the  High  Priest  where  his  Master 
was  arraigned  before  the  Sanhedrim,  and  after  several  vain  attempts, 
falsewitnesses  were  procured  against  him  (57-61).  On  his  refusing  to 
defend  himself,  the  High  Priest  puts  him  on  his  oath  according  to'^the 
solemn  form  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  and  receives  in  answer  the  first  public 
formal  assertion  of  his  Messiahship  and  Divinity,  confirmed  by  a  pre¬ 
diction  of  his  second  coming  (62-64).  The  High  Priest,  both  by  sym¬ 
bolical  action  and  by  word,  declares  him  guilty  of  blasphemy  in  their 
very  presence,  and  the  Sanhedrim  accordingly  condemns  him  to  death 
and  gives  him  up  to  the  most  unmanly  treatment  and  cruel  mockery 
especially  of  his  prophetical  pretensions  (65-68).  Here  the  historian 
pauses,  at  the  most  convenient  place,  to  let  us  know  that  in  the  inter¬ 
vals  of  these  proceedings  Peter  had  been  repeatedly  accosted  as  a  fol¬ 
lower  of  Christ,  and  had  as  often  denied  him,  until  brought  to  him¬ 
self  and  to  repentance  by  hearing  the  appointed  signal  (69-75). 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 

Although  our  Lord  had  been  condemned  to  death  for  blasphemy  by 
the  highest  tribunal  of  the  Jews,  that  body  re-assembles  at  an  early 
hour,  for  the  purpose  of  transferring  him  to  the  tribunal  of  the  Koman 
Governor,  who  alone  had  power  to  execute  the  sentence  (1-2).  Before 
proceeding  to  record  what  took  place  there,  the  historian  pauses  to  de¬ 
scribe  the  miserable  end  of  the  betrayer ;  his  remorse,  his  confession, 
his  restitution  of  his  wages,  and  his  suicide  (3-5).  Then  follows  the 
debate  among  the  priests  as  to  the  use  to  be  made  of  the  money,  and 
their  purchase  of  the  Potter’s  Field  (6-8).  In  all  this  the  evangelist, 
according  to  his  plan,  points  out  the  fulfilment  of  an  ancient  prophecy 
(9-10).  Then  resuming  the  account  of  our  Lord’s  trial,  he  records  his 
avowal  of  his  kingship  before  Pilate,  and  his  steady  refosal  to  answer 
the  accusations  of  the  Jews  (11-14).  Pilate  attempts  to  exchange 
him  for  another  prisoner,  according  to  a  yearly  usage,  in  which  he  is 
encouraged  by  a  message  from  his  wife  ;  but  the  people,  instigated  by 
their  rulers,  choose  Barabbas  in  preference  to  Christ  (15-23).  Pilate 
then,  by  word  and  symbolical  act  repudiates  all  responsibility,  which 
the  people,  by  an  awful  imprecation,  take  upon  themselves  (24-25). 
He  is  then  abandoned  to  their  will,  mocked  by  the  soldiery,  and  led 
to  execution  (26-33).  The  crucifixion  is  then  described,  with  various 
circumstances  serving  to  identify  the  sufferer  as  the  subject  of  the 
ancient  prophecies  (34-35).  The  Roman  watch,  the  inscription  on  the 
Cross,  his  fellow-sufierers,  the  scoffs  of  the  passers-by,  and  the  fear¬ 
ful  insults  of  the  priests,  are  all  described  with  terrible  distinctness 
(36-44).  Then  follow  the  extraordinary  darkness,  the  desponding  cry 
upon  the  Cross,  the  mockery  even  of  this  agony  by  some  of  the  by¬ 
standers  (45-49).  The  moment  of  his  death  is  marked  by  various 


456 


MATTHEW  27,28. 

supernatural  phenomena,  producing  conviction  in  the  Roman  soldiers 
wdio  had  charge  of  his  execution  that  he  was  what  he  professed  to 
be  (50-54).  Among  the  actual  spectators  of  his  death,  the  historian 
particularly  mentions  many  women  who  had  followed  him  from  Gal¬ 
ilee,  several  of  whom  he  designates  by  name  (55-56).  The  burial  of 
our  Lord  is  entrusted  to  an  eminent  [though  hitherto  a  secret]  dis¬ 
ciple,  who  deposits  the  body  in  his  own  tomb,  leaving  two  of  the 
Marys  as  it  were  to  watch  it  (57-61).  A  very  different  guard  was 
provided  the  next  day  by  the  guilty  fears  of  the  Jewish  rulers,  who  ob¬ 
tained  from  Pilate  a  detachment  of  soldiers,  to  prevent  the  body  being 
stolen  (62-66). 


CHAPTEE  XXYIIL 


The  history  now  closes  with  the  Resurrection  and  its  accompanying 
incidents,  the  earthquake,  the  descent  of  the  angel,  the  effect  upon  the 
guard  (1-4)  ;  the  encouraging  address  to  the  women  who  had  come  at 
an  early  hour. again  to  see  the  sepulchre,  the  message  sent  through 
them  to  the  disciples,  its  repetition  by  our  Lord  himself  who  meets 
them  on  the  way  (5-10),  the  report  of  the  soldiers  to  the  rulers, 
and  the  falsehood  put  into  their  mouths  (11-15).  The  whole  narrative 
is  wound  up  by  the  rendezvous  in  Galilee,  our  Lord’s  assumption  of 
supreme  authority,  his  great  commission  to  his  followers,  and  the  ac¬ 
companying  promise  of  his  perpetual  presence  with  them  (16-20). 


THE  END. 


t 


r 


m 


■y 


\ 


:\-,i  < 


,A  ■' 


Date  Due 

&5 

1 

ScS  •  •  •  o__. 

Ap 

6m- 

0 

MAR  3 

1  vm 

& 

\ii  *  r- 

1  1PQP 

r 

^1  !Qw*0 

1 

f 

I 


i, 


is' 


•  / 


t 


I 
:  « 


\ 


I 


I 


» .  ■ 

V 


/ 


